3.1 Sociocultural Impacts in Tourism Research
The impacts of tourism refer to the net changes brought by the process of tourism development (Wall & Mathieson 2006, 21; Wolf 1977, 3). I have chosen to use more frequently the concept of sociocultural impacts, as this concept is the most common one in the tourism research. Still it could be more appropriate to emphasize the agency of the local people by using the concepts such as tourism’s sociocultural signifi cance or consequences. Wall and Mathieson (2006) argue that the people in the tourism destination areas are not passive and simply ‘impacted’, but often actively seeking for tourists, investors and developing agencies.
Sociocultural impacts can be connected to the concepts of ‘livelihood impacts’ or ‘people impacts’, and they emerge in the form of changed human behavior (Ashley, Roe & Goodwin 2001, 23; Wall & Mathieson 2006, 19;
Wolf 1977, 3). This means that the emphasis is not on the environmental or fi nancial impacts, but instead on the less studied area; social and human capital and cultural values. The clear categorizing of sociocultural impacts seems to be more typical in tourism research than in developing studies. As the economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts of tourism overlap and infl uence each other, this kind of categorizing is not self-evident. In a way sociocultural impacts should not be taken apart from economic and environmental impacts, since the impacts of tourism development should be seen more holistically. Still, in tourism research this division can help to notice the broad consequences that tourism development can cause. As the sociocultural impacts of tourism are often been left without appropriate attention, this study emphasizes the importance of sociocultural impacts in sustainable development.
Sociocultural approach includes factors such as well-being, value systems, attitudes, behavioral patterns, education and skill base, cultural
heritage, creative expressions, intercultural understanding, social structure, equity, participation and empowerment (Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert &
Wanhill 2005, 262; Fox 1977, 27). As an example, tourism can reinforce cultural understanding and local pride, but on the other hand, it can also contribute to the loss of cultural identity and induce confl icts in the host community. In addition, the impacts are not the same for everyone in a tourism destination. It is vital to acknowledge that all the people in the host community are not hosts, but still infl uenced by tourism development in the area. What may be a benefi t to one group within the community may be a cost to the neighbors (Wall & Mathieson 2006, 8).
In tourism literature the sociocultural impacts are frequently presented as a list of negative and positive impacts. The listing of positive sociocultural impacts of tourism development is often started with a very broad statement according to which tourism ‘improves the quality of life for local residents’
or ‘reduces poverty’. More specifi cally, tourism is considered to reduce racial, political, religious, sociocultural and language barriers, which can lead to inter-cultural understanding and peace. Tourism can also foster local pride and enhance the appreciation of one´s own culture, which reinforces the preservation of heritage, tradition, history, culture, legends et cetera.
Positive sociocultural impacts also include the reduction of dependency, the increase of security by generating income, and the positive changes in the migration patterns. (Cooper et al. 2005, 246; Jafari 2001, 30; Smith 2001, 110; Trousdale 2001, 247.)
However, it is often argued that these kinds of positive impacts of tourism development are only myths when it comes to the contemporary forms of mass tourism. It has been stated that ‘the true cost of holidays’
are the confl icts about land and water, displacement of local people, human rights abuse, and exploitation of women and children. (Cañada & Gascón 2007a; Hickeman in Viswanath 2008, 50–51.) Tourism is also blamed for increase in undesirable activities such as alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, black market in import or substitute goods, prostitution and gambling.
Moreover weak preparation for seasonality and employment of non-locals are common reasons for negative sociocultural impacts. Tourism has led to gradual erosion of indigenous languages and cultures and to superfi ciality as well as commercialization of culture, arts, religion and more. Often listed negative sociocultural impacts also include demonstration effect, relative deprivation, generation of stereotypes, breakdown in a family, or community cohesion, and even the spread of diseases. (Fagence 2003, 62; Jafari 2001, 30; Moworth & Munt 2003, 90; Smith 2001, 110; Swarbrooke 2002, 72;
Trousdale 2001, 247; Wall & Mathieson 2006, 285.)
Thoughtful consideration and assessment of the potential impacts should be included in all kinds of tourism initiatives – even in supposedly more sustainable and responsible forms of tourism. In general, the main
objective of sociocultural impact assessment or analysis is to provide information about host communities’ perceptions of tourism development.
This information is essential to all the parties working with tourism development in a certain destination in order to reinforce the positive impacts and mitigate the negative ones. The conventional impact assessments have often been reactive and have had focus only on immediate impacts. Even the consideration of impacts and alternatives should never be discouraged, still it would be ideal to assess the possible impacts already before the fi nal design of tourism development. It has increasingly been recognized that one-time impact assessment may be inadequate and there is a need for evaluation in different stages of tourism development. (Trousdale 2001, 242–245, 253, 256; Wall & Mathieson 2006, 299, 316.)
The amount of empirical research is growing, however, many authors argue that there is still a lack of conceptual and methodological guidelines as well as technologies for the prediction and assessment of sociocultural impacts of tourism (Rátz 2006, 36; Trousdale 2001, 243; Wall & Mathieson 2006, 326). The impact assessment should always be contextualized (Trousdale 2001, 246–247) and that is maybe why it is not even possible to create one general tool for tourism development. Today there are some tools, such as the Delphi technique, carrying capacity calculations, public attitude surveys and a fi eld methodology called Appropriate Tourism Impact Assessment (ATIA). As an example, ATIA is a practical model for sociocultural impact assessment, which is designed to assist in tourism planning by recognizing local problems and by assisting in their remediation (Trousdale 2001, 242). It seems that the challenging part of planning these kinds of tools is to create well-functioning categorizes of sociocultural impacts. Different kinds of rural development appraisal tools have also been indented to adjust to the tourism research and many of these have strong emphasis on the local participation. Examples of these kind tools are Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) (Mowforth & Munt 2003, 219; Shen et al. 2008). However, these rural appraisal techniques seem to have shortcomings in the context of tourism development. What seems to be common to both tourism and rural development techniques is the concentration mainly on the problems, leaving out the possible benefi cial impacts that could be promoted.
Even though the impact assessment should be modifi ed according to the type of tourism, there are some common factors that always have relevance to economic, environmental and sociocultural impacts. Wall and Mathieson (2006, 65–67) argue that it is not the most important to ask “What are the impacts of tourism?”, but instead to consider “In what circumstances these impacts are likely to occur?”. They have named three main factors that should always be taken into account in tourism impact analysis. The fi rst factor are community characteristics, such as the resource base, availability
of alternative economic opportunities, social structure and organization, political organization and the extent of local control in planning and decision-making. The second factor is the level and type of tourism development, as the number of tourists, accommodation type, the length of stay and the touristic activities. The third factor is the nature of host-guest relationships which include the frequency, locations, seasonability and the spontaneity of the interactions are also relevant in tourism development.
The impacts of tourism development are likely to change over time.
Tourism is dynamic and cumulative, and the impacts of tourism are normally more than results of a specifi c tourist event, activity or facility.
Impacts linger and interact with each other and are linked to a number of other agents of change infl uencing the destination. (Wall & Mathieson 2006, 19–21.) Sociocultural consequences usually occur slowly over time and they are also largely invisible and intangible. Yet the social changes caused by tourism are usually permanent. (Swarbrooke 2002, 69.)
Tourism development can also stop, change direction or modify its character. Different changes in tourism development can be caused by changes in motives, attitudes, knowledge and aspiration of tourists or residents, for instance. Tourism development can produce outcomes that are not expected and that are diffi cult to predict, and changes may be caused by outside forces over which those involved in tourism have very little control of. (Wall & Mathieson 2006, 21.) Even though all the possible effects cannot be predicted, there is a growing recognition that anticipatory control of development impacts will lead to a better quality of life and development (Trousdale 2001, 243).
But if tourism is expected to lead to a better quality of life, sustainable development and reduction of poverty, what is normally meant by these broad concepts? I would like to point out the broadness and fuzziness of these terms by starting with a quick historical review of the most central concept: development.