Small can be Beautiful, but Big can be Beautiful Too—And Complementary: Towards Mass/Alternative Tourism Synergy

Abstract

The ‘small is beautiful’ school of tourism, inspired at least indirectly by Schumacher, has a long pedigree rooted in the Grand Tour and some forms of pilgrimage, but found compelling contemporary expression since the early 1980s under the guise of ‘alternative tourism’ (AT) (Dernoi 1981; Gonsalves 1987; Holden 1984). Perhaps it was the rapidity with which conventional mass tourism appeared to conquer large swaths of the global coastline after World War Two, and the shock of realizing that the promised economic benefits were often accompanied or superseded by a bevy of unwelcomed costs, but the supporters of AT were for the most part subsequently and unfortunately inclined to view the constructs of AT and mass tourism in sharply conflicted black and white terms (Weaver 2006). As an ideal type contrasted with mass tourism, AT emphasized small scales of engagement presumably more appropriate for the small and marginalized communities that were beginning to be incorporated into the global pleasure periphery. This ‘good’ tourism, unlike ‘bad’ mass tourism, would empower local people, celebrate their authentic local culture, and attract small numbers of sensitive visitors whose expenditures were expected to foster linkages rather than leakages, especially in Third World countries or peripheries of developed countries inhabited by indigenous people. An especially popular and resilient manifestation that continues to resonate with government development agencies, NGOs such as Tourism Concern and many academics is ‘community-based tourism’ (CBT) (Murphy 1985), where local residents are invested with control over the planning and management of the sector, and the (presumably equitable) disbursement of benefits, with concomitant benefits for the environment (Sebele 2010). Despite strong levels of continued support in some quarters for CBT and other forms of AT, the actual track record is more ambivalent, as discussed by Harrison. Small can be nasty to the extent that members of small and insular communities are acutely aware from their own perspective of who does and does not benefit ‘fairly’ from such activity. Intersecting family and clan affiliations exacerbate the potential for internal and external conflict, and for elites to consolidate or reinforce their existing power through tourism (Ranck 1987; Reed 1997). Small scales of operation also imply limited bargaining power and exposure, and low levels of tourism-related experience, skill and expertise that increase the probability of poor service standards and visitor dissatisfaction. The desire of some ‘alternative tourists’ to intrude into the private spaces and times of residents is also cited as a salient cost among segments such as backpackers (Ooi and Laing 2010). Highly germane as well is Harrison’s observation that small-scale products are not all created equally, and may include ultra-luxury boutique hotels and ecolodges that grotesquely exaggerate host–guest inequalities of wealth and power.