Since the 1970s and 1980s, the possibilities for the common man to travel almost anywhere in the world have only heightened. Globalisation is the increasing interconnectedness of economies and societies through increasing ease of communication, transport and trade (AQA 2011); has given rise to a boom in worldwide tourism development.
Tourism can be described as a trip, or holiday, away from one’s usual place of residence, involving at least one overnight stay. (Mayhew 2009). These trips and holiday, indulged by mainly citizens of the Global North, have been the drivers for a number of developments that have had far-reaching socio-cultural impacts.
Urry (1990) states that the ‘cultural aspect of a destination is key to the tourism experience’. This means that tourism companies, driven by economic gain, will either alter or commodify culture of a destination- which has some positive, but many negative effects on the destination community.
The first example of this can be seen within the Caribbean. An area which used to consist of sustainable communities of farmers, and ‘sun sea and sand’ in the early days of tourism, has now become the place to go for ‘sun sex and casinos’ (Garcia and Clegg 2009). Existing communities are either drawn into the ‘dark side’ of this industry, or marginalised. Women become sex workers, (although many of these are migrants) although many of them are happy to embrace this new cultural phenomenon because it gains them access to some of the wealth that they are now being constantly exposed to (Garcia and Clegg 2009).
Cruise industries that operate within the Caribbean marginalise local communities in many ways. Not only is there an apparent ‘skin colour hierarchy’ on board (Wood 2000) but the companies, such as Royal Caribbean Cruises actually own Caribbean land and islands and allow native communities no access to allow their guests to enjoy ‘the true Caribbean experience, free from clutter’ (Royal Caribbean 2011).
The second example involves the ‘commodification of culture’. As Cole (2007) states, ‘much literature points to the fact that Tourism causes culture to become a commodity’.
Examples of this can be seen even in the most remote places of the globe, driven by tourists demand for the more ‘authentic’ experience. Sadly, more and more remote places are now being exploited by tourism companies due to the tourist’s demands to see the ‘Other’. As Cole (2007) also states, ‘once a place loses its distinctiveness and its authenticity, it loses its appeal and value’.
Ngadha is a small village in the Indonesian country of Flores, and poses an interesting example of the socio-cultural impacts of tourism development. Studies show that culture is not always altered by tourists, and rather, commodification of culture can sometimes have positive effects of the destination communities.
The people of Ngadha express a feeling of pride and empowerment when sharing their cultural rituals with tourists. (Cole 2007). Their ethic is ‘the more the merrier’ (Cole 2007). However these people have not been vastly manipulated by tourists. They will allow tourists to join their rituals, but refuse to put on rituals especially for the tourists’ benefit as this is ‘fake’ and would ‘anger the ancestors’ (Cole 2007).
This is not the case for many parts of the world however. In areas of Spain, festivals are ‘staged’ for the tourist benefit. Much of Spain’s original culture has been lost due to mass tourism (Cohen 2001).
The socio-cultural benefits to the people of Ngadha, however are not completely typical to the entire of Flores. Although positive benefits come with the influx of Tourism industry such as infrastructure and electricity, this is not always favoured by the tourists. They described the electricity poles, a clear indication of modernisation as ‘unsightly’ and ‘ruining their photographs’ (Cole 2007). Unfortunately the state side with tourists and many areas of Flores are denied modernisation to retain their backward and primitive ‘charm’.
Tourism development can have varying effects depending also on level of community participation. Two examples include Tamarindo, in Costa Rica, and Samoa. Tamarindo in Costa Rica has been subject to vast levels of Tourism development and influx of multi-national companies. Landowners have sold their property to developers and are now effectively slaves, employed by these companies as a means to survive. Refusing to sell brings one no favours either; a family in Tamarindo decided not to sell their house, and are now surrounded by high rise hotel complexes. Their view and community and thus quality of life has been destroyed (Cole 2014).
In contrast to this, Samoa paints a different picture. Here, low maintenance Fales are owned and run by locals, and this increases wealth, pride and community adherence (Tuson 1999). This situation isn’t without pitfalls however. Water is a rare commodity in simplistic local tourism developments, and severe water shortages are likely by 2025 in many areas (Cole 2012). Tourists use three times the water as locals (Garcia and Clegg 2009) and this shortage is in some areas already causing conflict in some countries within communities.
Socio-cultural implications come in many forms. Quality of life is often reduced by commodification of culture, and social impacts come in the form of lack of dignity and pride, as well as marginalisation.
Cohen (2001) states that ‘although we saw the demise of colonial style human zoos in the 1940s, the phenomenon is still apparent in the context of modern ‘ethnic tourism’ (Cohen 2001). An example of this is Kenyan tribes. A study revealed that women removed their neck rings because they didn’t want their community to become a ‘human zoo’ (Trupp 2011). They began to adopt a more Western culture and dress sense, so effectively their culture is lost. Although this is not always a negative implication for the communities involved, the Kenyan tribes were forced to ‘reinvent’ their culture and put back on the neck rings for economic reasons (Trupp 2011). This is an example of the implication for societies when their culture becomes ‘Museumized’. (MacConnell 1976).
The other end of the spectrum is when communities are simply marginalised, penalised or ‘pushed out’ for tourism development, and this is seen in much more ‘far-flung’ places than the Caribbean which has been ‘Globalised’ for many years.
The Maasi tribes have been removed from areas of land and are no longer allowed to hunt or remove wildlife (which damage livestock, crops and housing) because these wildlife species have a commercial value for tourism companies. (…. 2010). This is an example of how tourism can seriously damage even the very last of the globes native population livelihoods’.
Despite this, there are many benefits of tourism development. Schyven and Russel (2011) describe the native Fijians as having benefited as a community from lease payments and multi-national corporations. These funds enter a pot which is used for community projects- enhancing income stability and community adhesion.
Tourism development has many socio-cultural impacts, both positive and negative, that is driven by tourist demand. It depends on the level of such demand whether a place is changed significantly, such as in the Caribbean, or ‘museumized’ such as in Kenya. What is particularly notable however is than more and more remote places in the globe are now subject to socio-cultural impacts of tourism development.
Geogger 