Working in tourism, it seems that no matter what is happening in a place, tourism is always the answer. More jobs are needed? Tourism can do that. Higher incomes? Tourism is the solution. Even for those working in regenerative tourism, tourism is often the only answer. Nature needs to be restored? Tourism can help. Liveability of a place improved? Tourism could be the way to do that. This is, of course, very simplistic, but what if we were to look beyond the borders of tourism? What if tourism is not the answer?
Let me clarify: I do believe in the power of tourism driving positive change. I am fully aware of the positive things tourism can bring to places, and there is enough evidence to support that. There are places where tourism has revived the area, made it more attractive for young people to live again, has contributed to livelihoods, improved public transportation infrastructure, and ensured the existence of facilities such as bakeries or bars. So yes, tourism can be a force for good and a means to contribute to places – if done well. However, I just don’t think tourism is always the solution, and we shouldn’t automatically assume it is.
In regenerative tourism, we often talk about starting from place, taking into account first and foremost the interests of the local community, involving them in the conversation and tourism development process. What does the local community want for their home? And how could tourism potentially contribute to that? But what if it is not a bar or a bakery that the community wants, but instead medical services or a public school? Could tourism still have a meaningful contribution? What if people want other types of jobs than tourism-related ones? What if people do not want more visitors to come? What if nature needs to be left alone? Is tourism really always the best way?
Right now, tourism is the starting point. Even when practitioners actively consider the local context and local communities, tourism is a given. But what if we took a step back and asked ourselves: is tourism the right focus for this place? And so I can’t help but wonder, shouldn’t we, as regenerative tourism practitioners, also look beyond the tourism solutions? – however contradictory this may sound. You might think: this is a bit of a stretch. We work in tourism, and if it is not tourism, shouldn’t someone outside tourism take it up? But that is just the whole point. It makes us think in silos all over again. The whole point of regenerative tourism is to look beyond the borders of tourism and think from place and what that place needs. So why not include alternative answers to that question?
There are plenty of other reasons as well as to why tourism might not be the best way forward to achieve local needs and desires, or why developing tourism can even be problematic. First of all, it’s prone to crisis (think COVID, natural disasters, economic crisis, etc.), this goes for other sectors as well, of course, but tourism has been proven to be especially sensitive to such external events. Second, tourism is often seasonal, and a year-round income is not guaranteed. Bars and restaurant might be open during high season, but sometimes need to close the rest of the year which leaves little for local communities to enjoy. Third, when talking about places with overtourism, tourism developed in the ‘right way’ could bring benefits to communities, but does it really outweigh the pressure of the numbers on social and natural life? In that case, would reducing tourism numbers not be the only solution? Finally, there is the issue of the carbon footprint on a global scale. Low-income countries developing tourism (regenerative or not), are often dependent on visitors from high-income countries, which in many cases requires that people use flights to get to those places. This exacerbates carbon footprint and climate change. Flying in these instances is often justified because tourism is the only solution to make a living for these countries. But what if it’s not? What if this dependency also needs to change? Maybe these countries should be less dependent on tourism and have more diverse economies to maintain a living? I had a conversation about this once and was scorned and looked at in disbelief for saying that – they believed this was an unrealistic scenario, because we work in tourism, and this goes beyond tourism. But again, that is exactly my point.
This might seem like a plea to not develop tourism at all, but it is not. I’m not saying the answer is never tourism, or tourism cannot bring good things. As I mentioned at the beginning, I do believe in its power for positive change. In some places tourism can be the best solution. But in other places it might be something else. And I think we should at least consider that to make our work truly align with place-based thinking. I believe it is important to consider the other scenarios and really start from place. What is needed? What do people want? Can tourism be a vehicle for change? Or do we need other (economic) activities that might serve that place better?