Our Future Environment

Although tourism can be defined in different ways it is essentially the activity of a tourist, “a temporarily leisured person who voluntarily visits a place away from home for the purpose of experiencing a change” (Smith 1989, 2). Graburn (1989) characterized tourism as a kind of ritual process that reflects society’s deeply held values about health, freedom, nature, and self-improvement. In this view, vacations can be interpreted as the modern, secular equivalent of the annual festivals and pilgrimages in more traditional, religious societies. Drawing on Durkheim, Graburn analyzed the ritual function of tourism in society, especially its role in building and maintaining a collective consciousness. The totems in the modern ritual of tourism appear on the pages of guidebooks, on websites, and on the surfaces of souvenirs.
Though anthropologists have delved into the factors that motivate tourists to travel and the negative or positive impacts tourists have on a locality there is less attention on examining the conditions under which local landowners become involved in tourism (Stronza, 2001). The emphasis in anthropology of tourism literature remains on what is external to a site, such as how eco-tourism is introduced, rather than on what the existing conditions, such as local economy or landowner relationships, might reveal about whether eco-tourism will have a positive or negative impact on local landowners. To examine landowner-tourist relationships and the debates concerning access and conceptions of nature we will examine a particular type of tourism- ecotourism.
This niche group of tourism companies, often in partnership with nongovernmental organizations, claim to protect the environment and indigenous peoples, even as they strive for profit. These companies label their excursions variously as “eco-tourism”, “community-based tourism”, “cultural tourism”, or an all-encompassing “alternative tourism”. Alternative tourism includes “forms of tourism that are consistent with natural, social and community values, and which allow both hosts and guests to enjoy positive and worthwhile interaction and shared experiences” (Eadington & Smith, 1992, 3). Eco-tourism, as defined by the Ecotourism Society, is travel to natural areas that minimizes ecosystem impacts and provides local people with a financially vested stake in conservation (Wood, 1991). It recognized that efforts to link nature conservation to economic development must address interconnected ecological, resource use, and socioeconomic concerns, and that local involvement is critical. Interest in ecotourism as a means to encourage community-based conservation and development has grown rapidly in the past few decades (Boo, 1990; Budowski, 1976; Cater & Lowman, 1994; McNeely & Pitt, 1985; Mowforth & Munt, 1998) and is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the global tourism industry.
A number of studies have examined the potential for ecotourism to encourage a sustainable world. Such studies investigate the potential for it to promote environmentally sound development (Brown, Turner, Hameed, & Bateman, 1997), generate revenues for protected areas and local residents (Simpson, 1999), promote nonconsumptive resource use (Langholz, 1999), and promote environmental education (Rome & Romero, 1998). Others have analyzed the regional and global structures of the industry (Weaver & Elliot, 1996) and the characteristics, attitudes and behavior of ecotourists (Cespedes, 1996; Jamrozy, Backman & Backman, 1996; Obua & Harding, 1996) and ecotourism operators (Forsyth, 1997; Sirayaka & McLellan, 1998).
However, a number of worldwide studies have also examined the numerous drawbacks to developing ecotourism. Such research has focused on the adverse impacts on wildlife and fragile ecosystems (Higham, 1998); the breakdown of local cultural traditions (Zurick, 1992); few economic benefits to local people (Peters, 1998) and to protected areas (Simpson, 1999); and aggravated conflicts over access to resources (Barkin, 1996).
In an ideal scenario, ecotourists’ nonconsumptive use of and appreciation for the natural and cultural resources of an area can contribute attention and revenue to local conservation efforts while also providing economic opportunities for local residents. However, conservationists are both optimistic and skeptical that ecotourism may help protect the natural environment while meeting the economic needs of local residents (Barkin, 1996; Honey, 1999; Orams, 1999). In the midst of debates over the good and bad of ecotourism, the themes of local participation and local ownership of touristic infrastructure have assumed new importance (Eadington & Smith, 1992). Local communities are joining in partnerships with government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private tour companies to plan tourism strategies and develop new attractions for visitors. As a result, local hosts can gain much more control over how tourism affects their communities.
Although the shortcomings of ecotourism have generally been recognized, it continues to be widely promoted as a means of linking community land development with conservation. Considering this there is little literature on how and why local residents become involved in ecotourism (Stronza, 2001). To promote participatory stewardship and involve local residents in ecotourism projects, as many anthropology of tourism studies suggest, more attention should focus on how local residents choose to become involved in ecotourism.
A way to conceptualize encouraging participation between local communities and tourists is to consider the symbolic meaning attached to an object, whether it is a water source or land used for recreation, and the psychological ownership or stewardship involved in such meanings or participation. We will next examine theories of stewardship and psychological ownership to discuss the ‘how’ and ‘why’ local residents may become involved in ecotourism.

Filed under: anthro of property, natural landscape, environmental planning on April 17th, 2008