In July, 1985, the State Council and Military Commission of Yunnan Province declared Lijiang Naxi Autonomous County open to foreign tourism; in December, 1986, Lijiang City was designated a province-level historical and cultural attraction1. In the following decade, international tourism increased rapidly, presenting substantial opportunities and risks. Lijiang County includes some of the poorest communities in China; these places could presumably benefit from the economic jump-start afforded by successful tourist development. At the same time, the county has significant natural resources, including forests and potential sources of hydroelectricity, as well as unique topographical features and ecosystems. These resources are likely to be overexploited unless they are effectively protected. The development of appropriate tourism could provide a strong stimulus for conservation. Likewise, the trend toward cultural assimilation and obliteration of minority cultures throughout China would be opposed by the development of tourism that places an economic value on cultural diversity.
While tourism presents opportunities, it also entails risks. The primary risks are degradation of the natural and cultural environment, particularly those features which are promoted as tourism amenities. There are other risks to the hosts, including economic disruption, as well as risks for investors, and even physical risks for travelers. One area of Lijiang County where the opportunities and the risks are greatest is the Yu Long [Xue] Shan, or Jade Dragon [Snow] Mountains. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current trajectory of tourism in Lijiang and make recommendations for rational development of the Jade Dragon Mountains. Tourism is never a purely local phenomenon. In terms of factors drawing visitors, there is both competition and synergy among clustered destinations. The appeal and accessibility of "gateway" locales contribute directly to the appeal and accessibility of the comparatively remote destination. The destination in question may, in turn, function as a gateway to more remote sites. Depending on the interests and time constraints of visitors, a downstream destination may either enhance or diminish the appeal of an intermediate locale. The popularity of the provincial capital, Kunming, and of the many attractions around Kunming, is critical to the viability of tourism in the more remote counties of Dali and Lijiang. The development of tourism in Lijiang City, the county seat, would appear to have the strongest influence on development of the Jade Dragon Mountains; the appeal of Lijiang City derives in part from other sites throughout Lijiang County, as well as in the neighboring county of Zhongdian. The tourist industry in the very recently opened county of Deqen is currently dependent on spillover from Lijiang, but further development of amenities in Deqen -- and the eventual opening of the Yunnan-Tibet Highway -- could presumably equalize or reverse the influence. A plan for the development of tourism in the Jade Dragon Mountains must therefore take into account an extended geographical context. In addition to conditions in the host area, tourism development depends on factors relating to the guests. Variables which depend primarily on the identity of the guests, rather than on conditions in the host area, include: timing of visits; duration of stay; preferences in transportation (long-distance and local), accommodation, eating and recreational activities; and pattern of expenditures. Analysis of current and future tourism impact must take into account not just the intrinsic characteristics of the host area, but also the larger context of the international tourism industry.
In the 1960's, it became fashionable to think of tourism as a solution to the world's most intractable problems: poverty and inter-cultural misunderstanding (Hinch and Butler 1996; IUOTO 1963; Zinder 1969). Tourism could create economic opportunity in backward destinations with comparatively little investment, since the stock-in-trade would be that very backwardness - primitive culture and pristine nature. According to this optimistic scenario, tourism would bring jobs and a market for handicrafts2. Economic independence would lead to cultural pride and self-determination. The natural environment would prosper due to the holistic proclivities of indigenous peoples. A sustainable symbiotic relationship between host and guest would emerge, as the survival of cultural and natural assets was recognized as a shared priority.
Tourism was also perceived as a vehicle for peace through understanding (Hinch and Butler 1996; D'Amore 1988). Through first-hand experience and observation, tourists would gain an understanding of and respect for indigenous cultures; returning home, they would disseminate their views, resulting in greater equity in intercultural relationships3. Similarly, the indigenous cultures would achieve a better-grounded understanding of groups once identified only as colonialists and exploiters.
Initial optimism about the therapeutic value of tourism soon gave way to a critical chorus of naysayers. Studies have not borne out the expectation that increased economic activity would, through a "trickle down" effect, result in a well-distributed increase in prosperity (Zurick 1995:15). Instead, foreign capital transfers are subject to "leakage": costly goods and technology must be imported by the host country to support tourism. A disproportionate share of the wealth generated by tourism ends up in the hands of outside investors (who may own both local and international transportation facilities and other infrastructure) and tour operators, as well as a few local politicians and entrepreneurs. Within the host countries, foreign earnings tend to accrue primarily to the urban areas; tourism not only fails to alleviate the poverty in rural areas, but actually aggravates the economic asymmetries.
Opposition to tourism also emphasized the cultural losses incurred by the host. Problems identified include range from simple loss of privacy under the intrusive "gaze of the tourist" to "commoditization of culture" to "waikikinization" of tourism enclaves. The extent of the damage depends of course on the intensity of tourism. As "mass tourism" was identified with the most extreme negative consequences, exponents of various types of "alternative" tourism stepped forward. "Nature tourism," "eco-tourism," "adventure travel," and other perceived varieties of "appropriate tourism" have been touted as vehicles for "sustainable development" (cf. Whelan, 1991, on nature tourism; Hawkins 1994, on ecotourism; Zurick 1995, on adventure travel; Boo 1990, on nature tourism and ecotourism; Murphy 1994, on sustainable tourism). The main distinguishing feature of these sorts of recreation is, supposedly, a commitment to the natural environment and to traditional lifestyles; a tourist destination focused on this market would favor environmental protection over development. The smaller volume of traffic would foster holistic cultural contact, rather than the specious spectacles contrived for mass consumption. Recently, proponents of "indigenous tourism" have tried to shift the attention from the purposes and traveling styles of the tourists to the question of control and management (Butler and Hinch 1996).
Still, the skeptics have not quit the field. In the first place, the alternatives to mass tourism all imply reduced traffic and therefore less money; in a competitive market, alternative tourism must necessarily be at a disadvantage. Only rigorous regulation on the part of the host (as practiced by Bhutan, for example) or on the part of the major tourism-consuming nations (as practiced by the United States with respect to Cuba, North Korea, and -- until recently -- many other Communist countries), could suppress mass tourism in favor of appropriate tourism.
A second objection to the alternative tourism scenarios is that all forms of recreation predicated on authentic exotic experience are intrinsically unsustainable. Unlike conventional mass tourism consumers, who may be content with physical displacement from the cultural or technological "core" to a "peripheral" area developed to accommodate large numbers of transients, alternative tourists typically seek experiences available only in the few remaining "remote" areas of the world. As these areas are "discovered," they soon become integrated into the periphery. The mere availability of access transforms a natural site, just as a culture is transformed by the presence of spectators to whom it is "exotic," or even "authentically exotic." The alternative tourism experience requires a succession of new destinations. Unfortunately, the supply and carrying capacity of such destinations is limited.
A third problem with alternative tourism -- or any tourism -- as a vehicle for "sustainable development" is that the very notion of sustainable development is a non-sequitur. If the process of development is what is to be sustained, then it is obviously impossible for us to foresee, much less control, the future. If some stage of development is to be sustained in a particular locale, then the residents are going to be disadvantaged at least economically (and likely, in their own estimation, in other ways) vis-à-vis the cultural and economic "core." Fundamentally, alternative tourism, like much mass tourism, requires backward destinations; yet if there is any equity at all in the distribution of tourism revenues, a successful destination is going to move forward. Therefore "sustainable tourism development" can only mean that both the destination and the prevailing form of tourism are evolving.
Bridging many of the points of view already mentioned, scholars in the field of gender studies have taken increasing interest in the problems of tourism development. Issues of gender equity have been raised regarding the differential social and economic impacts of tourism on male and female hosts (division of labor, control of revenues, health, and human rights), as well on differential opportunities for male and female travelers. Special problems include prostitution (sex tourism), separate male and female economies, and reallocation of resources in ways that put a disproportionate burden on women hosts. (In October, 1997, these issues were addressed at an international conference entitled "Gender/Tourism/Fun," and sponsored by Dean MacCannell, Janet Momsen, and Margaret Swain of the University of California at Davis.)
219 W. Spencer St. #3
Ithaca, NY 14850
Tel: (609) 256-0102 Fax: (708) 575-6620
Email:
sicroff@bridges-prtd.com
