Planeta Forum

[planeta]

TOPIC: To what degree does tourism development displace local people?

Request - Please keep your posts brief (recommended: 250 words or less) and focused on this question.

REFERENCES

Tourism and Migration Conference
http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/tour/migration.html

Forum Guidelines
http://www.planeta.com/worldforum.html

[ECOT_Julia]

Displacement of people and forced migration - major concerns regarding land rights and indigenous communities' struggle for their human / land rights. We know that there are a number of displacements for tourism resorts or other infrastructure. Often, also not that direct, e.g. regarding the construction of water reservoirs to supply hotels, golf courses etc..

After the Tsunami, there was a big hype about the so-called buffer zones (coasts) where local residents were not allowed to return to their living spaces close to/on the beach. Many thought this was because the nice beach properties should be reserved for major tourism installations from the respective governments ... despite the situation is different now, it must be a concern for future disaster management and land rights.

Another threat is appearing in recent years: so-called Special Tourism Zones (similar to SEZs), most importantly in India and Latinamerica, as far as I know. Territories have to be cleared off before construction can start there, and although jobs and community infrastructures are promised to locals, which are the potentially (forced) displaced people, we are concerned that human rights violation and forced displacement / migration will take place on a larger scale regarding accessibility of such zones, their setting, availability of land, and probably just a view 'voices against'.

Please let me know if you have details of those working in that field. Many thanks.

[Amy Krause]

One of the other ways that tourism can displace locals is when tourism in a region increases the land values there. For examples, waterfront property or properties with beautiful viewscapes can sometimes entice affluent visitors to buy land. When the number of people who want to do this rises, the cost of land is no longer tied to local wages but wages from out of town or even out of country. This can squeeze locals out of the market.

At a residential level this has happened on a large scale in many mountain communities in the western US and Canada (i.e. Aspen, Vail, Whistler, Canmore) but it is also happening in places throughout the developing world. In effect, local people who work in these communities are often forced to live elsewhere. Children who grow up in these communities are forced to move away, not necessarily to find work, but to find a place to live.

Communities that sustain a successful tourism industry must also plan strategies to deal with the impacts of 'visitors' who decide to stay.

[Marcus Bauer]

Some reports about three different cases of displacement in the name of tourism in the spring 2006 edition of Tourism Concern's mag tourism infocus:

About the Andaman Islands, India:

“This will bring ‘low volume high end’ tourists to the Andamans, as is evident from what the numerous tourism master plans. High end tourism warrants high end infrastructure, which would be highly resource intensive in character. Whether the Islands, already stressed under numerous impacting factors and a burgeoning settler population, can more support such a profile of tourism is a crucial aspect that has not been touched upon. Instead all environmental concerns seemed to have been thrown to the winds. Apart from creating conflicts with local entrepreneurs over business operations and resource use, such tourism will displace them and affect the livelihoods of local people who depend on current low-scale tourism.”

Remarks: Is there evidence that high end tourism is harming local people? I doubt that responsible behaviour towards local people, i.e. involvement and participation, is strictly connected to any particular kind of tourism. In the Andaman context there is another interesting question: Who are the so called locals? The aboriginal people, the early settlers or the late settlers?

About Narmada Dam, Gujarat, India:

“Stop Narmada Dam displacements in the name of tourism!
Hundreds of tribals living around the controversial Narmada dam site in Gujarat may have to give up their lands yet again – this time for an ecotourism project.”

About the Massai Mara, Kenya:

“The Maasai have co-existed alongside flora and fauna for their entire history, and have never threatened the existence of any known species of animal or plant life. The tourism industry and conservation organisations have come to value that wildlife – an outcome of the Maasai management strategy. But with changing socio-economic conditions, Maasai have come into conflict with tour operators who depend on ecosystems remaining intact without the presence of the Maasai and their cattle. Farming of the land is on the increase and while pastoralist activities are compatible with wildlife and tourism, tilling the land isn’t. During the recent drought, the Maasai living around the reserve were faced with lifethreatening conflict. Cattle were dying and people's livelihoods destroyed because they were not allowed to use the areas adjacent to the park as they were an eyesore to the tourists. This calls for proper planning of land use to suit both tourism development, pastoralist and conservation efforts.”

http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/pdfs/IF%20Final%20Spring%202006.pdf

[planeta]

Any other comments about tourism development displacing locals?

[Mary Finn]

To second the comments on the cost of land increasing with tourism development - a recent article in Ecuador´s El Comercio about tourism in the southern Andean region (Loja, Vilcabamba) mentioned that a large percentage of the investment in tourism was made by foreigners. This doesn`t necessarily lead to displacement, but enough investment by outsiders can lead to higher land prices and locals either voluntarily or involuntarily having to sell out, as others have mentioned.

A last point, somewhat related, and which I´ve made elsewhere, is that exposure to the conspicuous wealth exhibited by foreign visitors can affect local culture and material desires, and increase motivation for locals to emigrate, esp from poorer rural areas. I`ve seen local youth in Ecuador go from longing after a pair of Levi`s, to buying Calvin Kleins, and finally up to higher end designer jeans (e.g., Diesels at the cost of a month`s salary locally). Add to this digital cameras, ipods and other electronic gizmos displayed by visitors, and the lifestyle of a local campesino can`t possibly maintain these increasing material appetites.

[Marcus Bauer]

Longing to break out from a rural area/poor economic conditions/lack of choices/traditional community setup seems a very common wish worldwide. Tourists displaying "the other life" can contribute to migration as well as e.g. any media can. Media often sugercoats things, e.g. "western" lifestyle. And tourists often do not properly represent their own life when on holiday, e.g. when sunbathing all day/reading/having drinks/dancing/cybersurfing... Understandable, if local people want to live alike. Possessing technical gadgets and sportsshoes are expressions for that desire. But this does not necessarily lead to migration. The DVDs and labeled clothes are often available even for people in remote areas. Question is: Are they affordable?
On the other hand a tourist's visit is a valuation for an area. Thus tourism can lead to pride in the local nature/culture etc. and consequently prevent migration. Moreover, it can be a means to improve economic conditions so that gadgets become affordable.

Both aspects are characteristics of tourism. A tourist has the capability to influence - because when he/she visits a site, he/she can be sites to local people. Tourists can display (economic) wealth and show around loads of technical equipment - or they can take interest in the locally available (ecological/social/cultural) wealth and enjoy local specialties.
It is a question of teacher and pupil. Should tourists be teachers or pupils?

[planeta]

Any other comments on the degree that tourism development displaces locals?

[Gerhard]

As final post of my participation in this discussion: I want to thank all of you who shared interesting thoughts and examples from different parts of the world and I wanted to add a final example of displacement by tourism. There is a clear division of reasons for migration into two factors: push ands pull. Displacement is often seen mostly from the former perspective (push factors): rising land prices, forced removals, constraints or rules / prohibition on traditional land use etc. (several mentioned above), yet the pull factor to search a better life (following examples of tourists) is an interesting one mentioned in this discussion.

I wish to add one more pull factor example that causes displacement not FROM a present tourist region but TO a major tourism region. In Chiapas and Yucatan many campesinos ("peasants") migrate to try and find (low-end) tourism jobs in Cancun and the adjacent "Riviera Maya". These workers often have no job security, low pay and at times little pride or even interest in their job.

The irony is that some villages actually have a tourism potential and the possibility of forming their own village tourism projects where they take part in the decisions rather than being at the bottom rung of the tourism industry ladder. I have visited villages in Chiapas with real attractions yet lack of organizational and marketing skills in spite of existing "ecotourism" projects that are just not taking off, that are losing their youth to the badly-paid Cancun jobs. More focus on the capacity building and long term aspects of community tourism growth is probably at least part of the answer.