میراث فرهنگی، جوامع محلی و توسعه اقتصادی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|6917||2005||25 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10818 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 32, Issue 3, July 2005, Pages 735–759
For many local communities in developing countries and elsewhere, the existence of large attractions nearby generates both benefits and costs. This paper examines some of the dynamics of the complex, nested relationships among host communities, their local heritage sites, and tourism management structures. Borobudur in Java, Indonesia, is used to illustrate the discussion of power, displacement and control, local participation, and the role of “new tourism” in developing countries. It further offers some reflections on how tourism planning and management might encourage small-scale local tourism enterprises for the benefit of both the host and guest populations.
The study of tourism, and the management of it, demands that it be seen as an extended field of relationships not readily disentangled from one another, not easily sorted... into clear-cut and exclusive, opposing categories: host and visitor, inside and outside, local and global, we and they, here and there (Geertz 1997:20). Tourism’s rapid international growth since the 60s has been well documented. Despite the recent sequence of external shocks since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, including further bombings in Bali, Kenya, and Madrid, as well as the SARS epidemic and Iraq war in 2003, tourism is now the world’s largest industry (WTO, 2002 and WTO, 2004a). Since the 60s, international tourism has been promoted as a major component of economic development and “modernization” strategies for many countries (OECD 1967; WTO 2004b) and seen as a “passport to development” (De Kadt 1979). The 20th century’s long post-war boom created rising disposable incomes in industrialized European and North American countries. New transport technologies from the early 70s, particularly wide-bodied aircraft, resulted in falling real prices for longhaul travel. South East Asia, the Caribbean and parts of Africa (which had formerly been the luxury end of the international market for Europeans and North Americans) benefited from this development. In the 90s, increasingly fuel-efficient aircraft were introduced on longhaul routes, which combined with airline cost savings and competition, led to further falls in real ticket prices and, in turn, fueled further expansion of mass tourism. In light of this expansion, many less developed countries (LDCs) were encouraged by multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and OECD, to host international tourism (OECD 1967). In addition, the demonstration effects of booming destinations such as Thailand also inspired other governments. For example, the successful “Visit Thailand Year” promotion was widely copied across South East Asia through the 90s by other ASEAN members (Dahles and Bras 1999). Given tourism’s economic significance in most LDCs, planning assumes a central role within the local political economy and highly detailed tourism development plans are created, with national, regional, and local masterplans drawn up (Hall 2000b; Inskeep 1991). However, for many local or “host” communities located close to large heritage attractions, such development raises many issues. This paper considers tourism planning and its relationships to local communities and their economic development. In essence, it argues that there are two main aspects affecting present approaches to planning and local communities: the issue of power relations and the economic case for local community involvement.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Many LDC attractions have limited linkages to their nearby communities and operate largely as enclaves in the economy. This paper suggests the need for a radical rethinking of the relationships between such sites and the local host communities. In particular, a new approach to tourism planning is urgently needed. This is seen in issues of power and control, and also in the economic case for local community participation. The following suggestions are offered, while recognizing that the historical specificity of each LDC, different regions within each country, types of attraction, local contexts, political economy of power relations, and particular characteristics of any given tourism authority, should not lead to the “one size fits all” approach (Simpson and Wall 1999). In light of all this, how then might a start be made? First, tourism departments and local authorities could engage with and listen to the local communities who live within and near attractions. The main concerns of the local people about the site, their level of involvement, “ownership” of the site, the mix of local and outside control of businesses, and ideas and concerns about managing the site all constitute appropriate agenda items. The Borobudur example raises some hope that dialogue can occur even in top-down systems: when local residents and small businesses objected in 2003 to the proposed “Java World” mall being built next to the ancient site, the governor reacted to the strength of the local community’s feelings (James 2003). His offer to postpone the proposal, asking local people to draw up an alternative plan, is a fascinating twist. This may eventually prove to be little more than lip-service being paid to the notion of local involvement in planning, but it is still an interesting development. Listening to local communities is only the beginning of the process of increasing local participation. One possible way forward is through creating effective partnerships between host communities and the authorities, so that local people feel that the attraction is their heritage site as well as the tourists’ (Black and Wall 2001). While structural, financial, and cultural issues could impede implementation (Tosun 2000), it is a valuable objective to work towards. As well as listening to the views expressed by the host community, planners and decisionmakers need to recognize the legitimate existence of small-scale businesses and the informal sector in plans for the development of regions, new resorts, or in the upgrading of existing attractions, including their roles in an integrated tourism system. Ratter (1998) proposed the idea of “planagement”, where small areas are seen as being like complicated ecosystems, thus requiring the careful fusion of planning and management, hence the term. The implementation of such ideas perhaps awaits a new generation of planners to be in place in many LDCs to begin explicitly to include the people “outside the plans”. Again, more than just lip-service being paid to local participation is required. As Tosun (2000) noted, there is also commonly a need for education of both planners and local people. He argued that some developmental nongovernmental organizations might have a useful role to play given their experiences with participatory development at the community level. The UK Department for International Development’s interest in pro-poor tourism might facilitate further initiatives (DFID 1999; PPT 2004; Roe et al 2004). Increasing local participation will require facilitating access to capital, in particular microloans for small businesses. Research in Yogyakarta demonstrates that the capital needs of small tourism businesses are minimal, but to obtain loans for startup capital or improvements they are hampered by lack of collateral which reduces access to banks and other lenders (Hampton 2003). LDC governments might learn from the success of the (nongovernmental) Grameen Bank in Bangladesh (The Guardian 2004) by encouraging the formation of specialized tourism microcredit agencies. Investment incentives could be created for small and medium-sized businesses, while placing strict limitations on new large hotel developments. This, of course, assumes that the encouragement of local small-scale businesses appears desirable, rather than a continuing “bigger is better” mindset. This may be the main obstacle to any movement towards increasing local participation. In addition, given the major role of external funding in much LDC tourism, a continuing focus on large-scale projects to capture economies of scale may be difficult to change. Free or highly subsidized basic training (perhaps funded by the national tourism departments) would assist many small-scale businesses. The aim would not be to replicate Fordist business methods, but rather to encourage post-Fordist, niche production and facilitate a better understanding of both international and domestic markets. Training could include craftwork production, marketing, distribution, appropriate sales techniques, and (for those working with international tourists) English language tuition (Roland 1999). Research by Cukier (2002) in Bali found that training also enhanced employability and facilitated employment for local people. In the final analysis, the empowerment of local communities to benefit from tourism in LDCs requires a radical rethinking of present planning priorities, although it is recognized that the political economy of local structures and the elites’ vested interests are also highly significant. Further, the role of transnational corporations as key actors is also crucial, as external capital can facilitate real change in the host society, or it may merely prolong the existence of a rentier class (Gunder Frank 1967) expropriating some of the surplus enroute to the industrialized countries. This also raises the fundamental issue of whether—under conventional international tourism—low income countries have merely exchanged one form of dependency for another (Britton 1982; Brohman 1996; Mowforth and Munt 2003; Tosun 2000). If “empowerment” of local people is to become more than just a buzzword or hopeful sentiment, it clearly requires the participation of local communities in partnership with the state, its agencies, and the large operators rather than being a passive “host” community that happens to have a major attraction on its doorstep. As Tosun comments: “community participation in the development process cannot become much of a reality unless specific and deliberate strategies at local, national, and international levels are developed” (2000:626). Concerning the latter, the gradual international acceptance of the principles of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, especially those of Local Agenda 21, gives some hope that local communities may benefit from a new approach to planning and managing local assets. In the same way, the increasing acceptance of the need for meaningful participation of local people also provides hope that heritage sites may be able to generate real economic and social benefits for their local host communities.