BML111 - FRAMEWORKS FOR SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS by Andrew Clegg

BML111: Tourism, Events & Des6na6ons: Impacts & Sustainability

Frameworks for Measuring & Assessing the Socio-Cultural Impacts of Tourism

Aims §  To iden(fy the key considera(ons when a3emp(ng to

measure and assess the socio-cultural impacts of tourism

§  To highlight and assess a range of conceptual frameworks

that have been developed to assess the socio-cultural impacts of tourism

§  To consider the ‘Extrinsic’ and ‘Intrinsic’ dimensions

rela(ng to socio-cultural impacts

§  To iden(fy the research tools and methodologies that can

be employed to examine the socio-cultural impacts of tourism

Defining the Host Community Ac6vity 1: •  De-brief – report back on the journals ar(cles you have found •  From your background reading, what are the key considera(ons when a3emp(ng to measure and assess the socio-cultural impacts of tourism?

Defining the Host Community Ac6vity 2: •  Watch the video ‘Beyond the Brochure’ – what are the key themes iden(ﬁed in this case study of Gambia

Defining the Host Community Ac6vity 2: •  Watch the video ‘Beyond the Brochure’ – what are the key themes iden(ﬁed in this case study of Gambia •  From this we now need to consider how research has tried to conceptualise the visitor/host rela(onship

Conceptual Frameworks: Irridex Doxeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Irridex

EUPHORIA

APATHY

ANNOYANCE

ANTAGONISM

(Source: Williams, 1998, p. 158)

Initial phase of development: visitors and investors welcome, little planning or control mechanism Visitors taken for granted, contracts between residents and outsiders more formal, planning concerned with marketing Saturation point approached, residents have misgivings about the tourist industry, policy-makers attempt solutions via increasing infrastructure rather than controlling growth Irritations openly expressed, visitors seen as the cause of all problems, planning remedial but marketing increased to offset deteriorating image

Application of Irridex Model Case Study: Teo, P. (1994) Assessing socio-cultural impacts: the case of Singapore, Tourism Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 126-36. Context:   Illustra(on of the nega(ve eﬀects of the lack of contact

between the tourist and host community   Average length of stay is 3 days - implying minimal contact   Tourists tend to remain in ‘enclaves’ or ‘ghe3os’

Application of Irridex Model Results:   75% welcomed tourists for economic purposes   75% thought that locals received poorer levels of service

than tourists

99% thought that tourists were overcharged   78% rarely communicated with tourists - oMen only to give

direcNon   Appropriate measure on Irridex - Apathy

Limitations Key Considera6ons:   Model assumes a degree of homogeneity and uni-

direcNonality in community reacNons to tourism

CommuniNes are heterogeneous and there will be a variety

of responses to tourism

Heterogenous Host Communities Krippendorf (1987): Four categories of local person   Those who are in con(nuous and direct contact with the

tourist

Those who own tourism businesses but have li3le contact

with tourists

Those who are in direct and frequent contact with tourists

but only gain part of their income from tourism   Those who have li3le or no contact with tourists   Each group will have their own percepNon of tourism, and

aUtudes to tourism impacts

Alternative Approaches #1 Butler (1975): Host AUtudinal and Behavioural Responses to Tourist AcNvity

[Source: Mathieson and Wall, 1982, pp. 139-140]

Butler (1975)

Key areas of considera6on:   All four forms of reac(on may exist at one (me, but the

number of people in any one category need not remain constant

The framework includes a dynamic element, assuming that

social impacts will change over (me

Compared to Doxey’s framework Butler’s framework allows

aPtudes and behaviour to change in diﬀerent direc(ons

Doxey’s framework is based around the en(rety of the

des(na(on environment, whereas Butler’s framework places greater emphasis on diﬀerent groups and individuals and the resultant tensions that may emerge

Alternative Approaches #2 Dogan (1989): The socio-cultural impact of internaNonal tourism, and the coping strategies developed by the host community

RESISTANCE

Community displays feeling of resentment and aggression against tourists and tourist facilities

RETREATISM

The host community retreats into local cultures and traditions, as a buffer against the foreign intrusion of tourism

BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE REVITALISATION

ADOPTION

Establishing a well defined boundary between foreign and local cultures to ensure impacts are minimised Tourism provides a catalyst for the preservation and revival of traditional customs, thereby helping to protect the identify and integrity of the host community The host community displays an active effort for the demolishment of the traditional social structure, in favour of the adoption of Western culture symbolised by tourism

Dogan (1989)

Key areas of considera6on:   The variable homogeneity of the host popula(on implies that

various combina(ons of strategies may exist simultaneously within the region

Key variables: heterogeneity of the local popula(on, local

power structures, the role of the government

Revitalisa<on may not exist as a dis(nct strategy by itself, and

could co-exist with either boundary maintenance or adop(on

Dogan (1989)

Key areas of considera6on:   Boundary maintenance: revitalisa(on may involve the

restora(on of tradi(onal customs/materials for touris(c purposes - emphasis on the authen(city of local tradi(ons

Adop<on: revitalisa(on refers to the commodiﬁca(on of local

customs/tradi(ons for mass tourism

Alternative Approaches #3 Ap and Crompton (1993): Development Stages

EMBRACEMENT

Residents openly accept tourists into their community

TOLERANCE

Collective indecisiveness towards tourists and tourist development

ADJUSTMENT

The resident stays in the community but deliberately avoids the destinations frequented by tourists

WITHDRAWAL

Local residents engage in a flight versus fight reaction; tourists leave the community during times of massive tourism influx

[Faulkner, B. and Tideswell, C. 1997]

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Dimensions

Extrinsic Dimension:   Deﬁni<on: the characteris(cs of the loca(on with respect to its

role as a tourist des(na(on

Key variables: the nature and stage of tourism development,

the level of tourist ac(vity and the type of tourists

Related frameworks/approaches:   Butler’s tourist area life cycle   Doxey’s (1975) Irridex   Tourist ra(o - number of tourists to the number of

residents, providing an indica(on as to the intensity of the tourist inﬂux

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Dimensions

Intrinsic Dimension:   Deﬁni<on: the characteris(cs of the members of the host

community that aﬀect varia(ons in the impacts of tourism in the community

Key variables: involvement, socio-economic characteris(cs,

residen(al proximity, length of residence

Related frameworks/approaches:   Butler (1975)   Dogan (1989)   Ap and Crompton (1993)

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Dimensions

[Faulkner, B. and Tideswell, C. 1997]

Defining the Host Community Ac6vity 3: â&#x20AC;˘â&#x20AC;Ż The frameworks outlined in this session are theore(cal/hypothe(cal. What methodologies could you use to measure the socio-cultural impact of tourism, and host aPtudes to tourism?