I READ AN INTERESTING ARTICLE RECENTLY; it was called The Revolt Against Tourism.
The article chronicled changes in major tourist destinations signalling that countries were setting limits to control its environmental and social impact.
Essentially, countries are waking up to the reality that tourism left unchecked can be damaging on different levels. Denmark, with less than six million people, received over nine million visitors last year.
However, it has instituted several measures intended to ensure that it is able to take advantage of the growth in tourism without becoming overcome by mass tourism.
According to the article, the Danes have developed “quiet zones”, were tourists and tour operators have to limit their noise and activity in residential areas, prohibited foreigners from buying vacation cottages on their sea coasts; devised their famous bicycle-friendly transportation system to include tourists; and strictly limited bars and restaurants from taking over Copenhagen.
The intent is to ensure that tourism “blends into the Danish way of life not the other way around”. If this was just in Denmark then we could put this down as an anomaly but no, right across the globe, Barcelona, Asia, Bhutan and even France there is a raging debate about how countries benefit from the tourism but limit the worst excesses.
More important, these measures are propelled by citizens who are pushing their governments to implement strict measures to protect their social, cultural, and environmental landscape despite the large revenue gains.
Interestingly, the article did not report on the extent to which the measures affected tourism arrivals in the countries that had sought to put mitigating measures in place.
Perhaps we do not have the capacity to make the same choices that some of these larger destinations do. At this point, tourism is the bread, butter as well as the knife and fork, keeping the country afloat.
When we talk about the issues and challenges in tourism, what we are discussing are the challenges of getting more tourists to our shores and not the immediate and long-term possible social, environmental and cultural impact.
The question is whether there is a conversation to be had in Barbados and generally in the Caribbean about the possible long-term impact of our drive to corner the tourism market.
Should we be at all concerned that many times the concern over crime only draws an official response when it begins to directly affect tourism, or that local beach access is becoming more and more facilitated through little two by four spaces as hotel and other tourist related buildings slowly encroach and cordon off beach front spaces?
Should we be discussing the long-term environmental impact of cruise tourism? This has been a serious source of contention for many years but remains mostly unchecked because of the monopoly and strength of the cruise operators.
Certainly, I blame tourism for the overly inflated real estate market which has pushed prices to the point of unbelievable. Additionally, I am becoming quite unsure that the gains from tourism significantly exceed the quantum of the investment, when we add it all up.
When we hear of increased tourism arrivals and its contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), we often do not get what it costs us in investment, incentives, physical infrastructure, human resources and so on. Right now, I do not believe that there is a crisis, certainly there is no outcry from the society or “revolt” on the horizon.
Tourists and locals co-exist happily for the most part. We do try to live up to the motto that tourism is our business.
However, the supposition is that plan not just for the tomorrow but the future.
Shantal Munro-Knight is a development specialist and executive coordinator at the Caribbean Policy Development Centre. Email shantalmunro@gmail.com