In a paper that looked at the evolution of alternative tourism as a concept, Gonsalves (1987) charted its beginnings as a defined concept from the Manila International Workshop in 1980, although he noted that concern over tourism had become public at the World Council of Churches in 1969. In 1984 in Chiangmai, Thailand, the 44 participants of The Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism (ECTWT) agreed that it was seen as a process that promotes a just form of travel between members of different communities. It seeks to achieve mutual understanding, solidarity, and equality amongst participants.
The ECTWT produced a resource book on alternative tourism and promoted models and programs. Such models included:
• Brief contacts with local people,
• Longer visits with host families and the community, and an insight into local life,
• Noncommercial learning options (study tours, work camps, exchange visits),
• Organisations or community groups in various countries concerned about third world tourism, and
• Alternative tourist travel agents in host and sending nations seeking to share rather than shield visitors from the destination’s culture and
problems.
Gonsalves (1987) sees the ultimate test of these alternatives in their ability to influence mainstream tourism. He cites an encouraging sign, that of the adoption of the Tourism Bill of Rights and Tourism Code by the World Tourism Organization in 1985 in response to the Penang Code of Ethics. He concludes that, ‘travel, throughout history, has been a means of education, cross-cultural communication and the development of meaningful relationships. Alternative tourism considers these objectives still valid and works towards these ends.’ He ended on an optimistic note, and was positive about the course and intentions of alternative tourism, a position that has more recently been subject to sceptical criticism by other writers. For Cohen (1987), alternative tourism is not even a single general concept, but composed of two principal conceptions. First, it is seen as a reaction to modern consumerism, a counter-cultural response to mass tourism composed of such characters as the adventurer, drifter, traveller, or those looking for spontaneity or romantically searching for a lost paradise. He suggests that these types occasionally create their own cultural enclaves involving drugs and sex, treating local people as oddities, and initiating a diminution of the culture of hospitality amongst the host community.
There is also the incipient creation of an alternative tourism ‘establishment,’ which leads to a further reduction in difference between alternative and mass tourism. Second, it is conceived as ‘concerned alternative tourism,’ which is in essence a reaction to the exploitation of the third world in which the notion of a ‘just’ tourism arises, furthering mutual understanding and preventing environmental or cultural degradation and exploitation. In this type of tourism small groups interact with local people, and smallscale projects involving local consultation and participation are the principal means of promotion. Cohen sees the principal quandary as being the fact that mass tourism cannot be transformed, whereas alternative tourism is too small scale to offer a realistic general option. This leads to the realisation that tourism is extremely varied and multifaceted and that criticism of mass tourism is too radical, whereas the goals of alternative tourism are set too high and are therefore unrealistic. Cohen is ultimately pragmatic, highlighting the need to reform the worst prevailing situation in mass tourism. In short, he has powerfully criticised the supposition that alternative tourism can ultimately lead to a transformation of tourism and is suspicious of the benefits that it brings. He offered a good working definition, drawing attention to two central aspects, and has added a healthy air of critical judgement.
Cazes (1989) was well aware of the ambiguity of the concept ‘alternative tourism’ and he likened it to the notion ‘integrated,’ which has been described as a ‘miracle-word, a panacea concept and a mythical term.’ However, he eventually provided guidelines that may be applied to six different sectorial fields: 1. The tourist as an individual: motivated through original aspiration, which may include active tourism (rambling, trekking), exploring, encounter travel, committed tourism (voluntary service overseas, archaeological digs), and other self-sacrificing work. 2. The practitioners: they do not want to be regarded as clients or consumers, and include backpackers, drifters, long-distance travellers; overall a varied group. 3. The journey’s destination: this may be an unexplored ‘virgin’ location and often rests on an idealised vision of peasant societies that represent ‘authentic’ cultures. 4. The type of accommodation: ‘supplementary’ including camping, small local family hotels, holiday centres, village inns, private rented homes, paying guests; the dominant theme is microfacilities as opposed to massive hotels. 5. Travel organisers and partners: especially the nonlucrative organisations (nongovernmental organisations, mutual benefit societies), individual travel organisations; marginal or underground. 6. The mode of insertion in the host community: this involves a concerted effort to develop the reception of tourists wherein discourse centres on integration (economic, social, spatial, ecological, urban), local control, and auto development. A crucial factor is the prominence of the local system in overseeing the tourism.
Having critically analysed the sectorial fields, Cazes went on to deconstruct the concept of mass tourism, seeing it as a myth that represents the ‘other’ or ‘anti-other,’ a seat of harmful potentialities. Thus, alternative tourism is in actuality a discourse on difference and is fundamentally elitist. In fact, it becomes a total subversion of the dominant models on three levels:
1. Values: the conditions of aspiration and motivations for the journey.
2. Process: the quality of collaboration and partnership, cooperation and synergy between external operation and local system at different stages of the phenomenon.
3. Forms: social, spatial, ecological, and architectural forms are all faithful to the guiding principles of integration based on local traditional patterns and workforce.
According to Cazes, there is no perfect example that epitomises alternative tourism as described above, although the development of Lower Casamance in Senegal comes close. Further, he admits that there are dangers in idealising the concept and points to the risks of ‘ghettoizing’ areas and the ‘museumification’ of sites of interest based on an elitist interpretation. A more straightforward definition is offered by Hitchcock, King, and Parnwell (1993) in the introduction to their edited collection, which suggests that in its purest form alternative tourism is underpinned by a number of principles:
• It should be built on dialogue with local people who ought to be aware of its effects and have political weight concerning the matter.
• It should be established on sound environmental principles, sensitive to local culture and religious tradition.
• It should be a means of giving the poor a reasonable and more equal share in the gains.
• The scale of tourism should be tailored to match the capacity of the local area to cope, measured in aesthetic and ecological terms.
The writers also noted that alternative tourism may be used to strengthen linkages between the tourism industry and other forms of local economic activity. They recognized that its promotion has led to the questioning of how tourism affects destinations and the fact that the market niche is being exploited, warning about the possibility of a green consumerism developing. However, they remained essentially optimistic, citing the case of ecotourism that can support the protection of vulnerable areas of natural beauty and scientific interest as well as to stimulate environmental awareness amongst the local population. Continuing the theme of environmental and social sensitivity, in an article on tourism and sustainable development, Murphy (1994), using the definition offered by Krippendorf (1987) who sees alternative tourists as ‘those who try to establish more contact with the local population, try to do without the tourist infrastructure and use the same accommodation and transport facilities as the natives’. He then went on to define ecotourism (a subset of alternative tourism) as occurring where the visitor contributes to the development and well being of the host ecology. Such tourists are regarded as the champions of the environment and sustainable development, and Costa Rica is cited as a country where ecotourism principles support the philosophy of sustainable development. As is clear from the above definitions and illustrations of alternative tourism, this concept is not easily contained within neat parameters, and moreover it may be regarded as too broad to be accurately used. Further, in the opinion of Cazes, its antithesis, mass tourism, is not sufficiently well understood for an alternative to be really valid. Nevertheless, it is possible to retrieve the central aspects of the concept from the various writers, and these include contact and communication between the tourists and the indigenous population, and a desire for equality, individuality, environmental awareness, and concern. However, there are also cautionary undertones, with some writers feeling that there is an element of elitism within this type of tourism, whereas others see it as being exploited as a consumer item. One must bear in mind the need to be cautious and sceptical in imagining its impact. In addition, as tourism grows and the need for environmental responsibility increases, so the necessity for an objective and detailed understanding of the phenomenon and its influence becomes more imperative.
