69 Girls ā 9599264170 ā Call Girls In East Of Kailash (VIP)
Ā
Tourism Lecture 9 - Dr Wes Kinghorn (1).pptx
1. This lecture is for
class viewing only
and is not to be
reproduced,
distributed or shared
in any form.
2. Media for this week:
A) What type of tourism should be promoted? - 4 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNwR2C6Q8I
B) Country boasts a host of tourist attractions - 3 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiM7_RTneCc
C) How mass tourism is destroying cities - 4 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyt1HdR4uLw
D) New life for old towns through sustainable tourism - 15 min.
https://youtu.be/kLRanIhp2jg
E) Airbnb and its impact on the UK housing market - BBC Newsnight - 9 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP3MK_C93zE
6. Today we will talk about
The Host
I will provide you with an overview of some of
the literature exploring what it means to be a
āhostā in the context of tourism.
7. Todayās information draws heavily on the work of
several excellent authors/researchers/theoristsā¦
I will note these authors along the wayā¦
This includes the excellent review by:
Richard Sharpley
(2014)
9. The compactā¦
Protection:
The ļ¬rst one was āprotectionā extended by the
host to the guest on the grounds of their
common humanity.
The mere fact of showing up at somebodyās
manor implied the provision of safety for the
time the guest chose to stay, or the host allowed
them to remain.
J. Aramberri, 2001
10. The compactā¦
Reciprocity:
The second element demanded āreciprocityā.
The guest shall return his hostās present
protection whenever their roles are reversed,
and in their future travels the host, their family
members, or associates ļ¬nd themselves in the
same predicament as the guest at present.
J. Aramberri, 2001
11. The compactā¦
Duties for both sides:
Finally, the covenant prescribed a batch of
āduties for both sidesā.
The host had to tend not only to his guestās
protection, but to his material well-being as well.
On the other hand, the guest became a
temporary member of the family..
J. Aramberri, 2001
12. To beginā¦
Many researchers see this old arrangement at
work during their ļ¬eldwork, leading some to see
this premodern covenant as the paradigm of
tourist exchanges.
This is where confusion starts, for in modern
mass tourism, the historic hostāguest model
often runs into trouble...
J. Aramberri, 2001
13. āFundamental to the successful development of
tourism is the balanced or harmonious
relationship between tourists, the people
and places they encounter, and the organisations
and businesses that provide tourism servicesā
(Zhang, Inbakaran, & Jackson, 2006).
Richard Sharpley, 2014
14. The foundations of Host benefitsā¦
As the ālargest peaceful movement of peopleā in history
both within and across national boundaries, tourism
represents one of the worldās largest discretionary
transfers of wealthā¦
ā¦thereby providing a source of income, foreign
exchange, government revenues and employment,
business and infrastructural development and, hence,
wider economic growth and development in destination
areas. (Lett, 1989)
Richard Sharpley, 2014
15. The foundations of Host challengesā¦
The development of tourism incurs varying degrees of
impact on destination environments and, in particular,
on the local people who act as āhostsā to tourists.
Indeed, destination communities face something of a
ādevelopment dilemmaā; they are, in a sense, required
to engage in a trade-off between the benefits they
perceive to receive from tourism and the negative social
and environmental consequences of its development.
(Wall & Mathieson 2006, Telfer & Sharpley 2008)
Richard Sharpley, 2014
17. Soā¦
Consequently, it is widely suggested that, should local
communities perceiveā¦
*the costs of tourism to outweigh the benefits*
ā¦then they will withdraw their support for tourism,
thereby threatening the future success and
development of the sector.
(Lawson, Williams, Young, & Cossens 1998)
Richard Sharpley, 2014
18. Butā¦
In practice, evidence of such a withdrawal of support
for tourism by host communities is limited.
In other words, the assertion by many commentators
that negative perceptions of tourism on the part of
destination communities may be translated into
similarly negative behaviour towards tourists or the
tourism sector isā¦
ā¦not widely supported in the literature.
Richard Sharpley, 2014
19. Why then do we concern ourselves with the Host?
Richard Sharpley, 2014
20. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
Although the terms ātourism,ā and ātouristsā are often
used inter-changeably within the literature.
Most studies are concerned with residentsā attitudes
towards what may referred to as tourism development,
and the benefits/disbenefits that arise from it.
Conversely, attitudes towards tourists, which may be
rather different from those related to tourism
development, are rarely addressed.
Richard Sharpley, 2014
21. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction (early work)
Sutton (1967) identified four characteristics seen as
common to most touring encounters:
1) The recognition by both participants of the
transitory & mainly nonrepetitive character of their
relationship;
Sutton 1967
22. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction (early work)
Sutton (1967) identified four characteristics seen as
common to most touring encounters:
1) The recognition by both participants of the
transitory & mainly nonrepetitive character of their
relationship;
2) Touring tends to highlight for both parties the
importance of an orientation to immediate
gratification;
Sutton 1967
23. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction (early work)
Sutton (1967) identified four characteristics seen as
common to most touring encounters:
1) The recognition by both participants of the
transitory & mainly nonrepetitive character of their
relationship;
2) Touring tends to highlight for both parties the
importance of an orientation to immediate
gratification;
3) Touring tends to be asymmetrical or unbalanced in
character;
Sutton 1967
24. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction (early work)
Sutton (1967) identified four characteristics seen as
common to most touring encounters:
1) The recognition by both participants of the
transitory & mainly nonrepetitive character of their
relationship;
2) Touring tends to highlight for both parties the
importance of an orientation to immediate
gratification;
3) Touring tends to be asymmetrical or unbalanced in
character;
4) There is a pervasive sense of new experience, & a
resulting freshness & excitement.
Sutton 1967
25. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction (early work)
Sutton (1967) identified four characteristics seen as
common to most touring encounters:
1) The recognition by both participants of the
transitory & mainly nonrepetitive character of their
relationship;
2) Touring tends to highlight for both parties the
importance of an orientation to immediate
gratification;
3) Touring tends to be asymmetrical or unbalanced in
character;
4) There is a pervasive sense of new experience, & a
resulting freshness & excitement.
Sutton 1967
ā¦but ābusiness as usualā
for local people!,
26. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction (early work)
Sutton (1967) identified four characteristics seen as
common to most touring encounters:
1) The recognition by both participants of the
transitory & mainly nonrepetitive character of their
relationship;
2) Touring tends to highlight for both parties the
importance of an orientation to immediate
gratification;
3) Touring tends to be asymmetrical or unbalanced in
character;
4) There is a pervasive sense of new experience, & a
resulting freshness & excitement.
Sutton 1967
ā¦now back to this one
27. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction (early work)
Sutton (1967) also identified 3 main types of touring
encounters from the standpoint of their cultural
composition are distinguished:
1) Those where the cultural backgrounds of hosts &
visitors are the same or closely similar;
Sutton 1967
28. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction (early work)
Sutton (1967) also identified 3 main types of touring
encounters from the standpoint of their cultural
composition are distinguished:
1) Those where the cultural backgrounds of hosts &
visitors are the same or closely similar;
2) Those where such backgrounds are different, but
the differences are supplementary or integrative in
nature;
Sutton 1967
29. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction (early work)
Sutton (1967) also identified 3 main types of touring
encounters from the standpoint of their cultural
composition are distinguished:
1) Those where the cultural backgrounds of hosts &
visitors are the same or closely similar;
2) Those where such backgrounds are different, but
the differences are supplementary or integrative in
nature;
3) Those where they are different & inconsistent.
Sutton 1967
30. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
Similarly, a later UNESCO paper found thatā¦
āā¦the encounter between tourist and
host is characterized by its transitory nature, constraints
in terms of time and space, and relationships that are
both unequal and lacking in spontaneityā
(UNESCO 1976)
Richard Sharpley, 2014
31. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
A) Sutton and UNESCO are concerned primarily with
encounters where the tourist is purchasing some
good or service from the host;
B) In addition, encounters may occur where the tourist
and host find themselves side by side and where
the two parties come face to face with the object of
exchanging information or ideas.
Richard Sharpley, 2014
32. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
Soā¦
āā¦the form and nature of relations between local
people and tourists evidently varies significantly, from
(i) structured, commercial exchange-based encounters
to (ii) spontaneous, serendipitous meetings or even
relations that involve (iii) no contact or communication
at all (that is, limited to the sharing of space).
Such distinctions have long been recognised.ā
(Sharpley 2014)
Richard Sharpley, 2014
33. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
Krippendorf (1987) proposed four types of resident
within a primarily business context:
1) Those in direct businesses with continuous contact
with tourists;
Krippendorf 1987
35. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
Krippendorf (1987) proposed four types of resident
within a primarily business context:
1) Those in direct businesses with continuous contact
with tourists;
2) Those in regular contact but only partially deriving
their income from tourism;
Krippendorf 1987
37. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
Krippendorf (1987) proposed four types of resident
within a primarily business context:
1) Those in direct businesses with continuous contact
with tourists;
2) Those in regular contact but only partially deriving
their income from tourism;
3) Those in irregular contact in unrelated businesses;
Krippendorf 1987
39. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
Krippendorf (1987) proposed four types of resident
within a primarily business context:
1) Those in direct businesses with continuous contact
with tourists;
2) Those in regular contact but only partially deriving
their income from tourism;
3) Those in irregular contact in unrelated businesses;
4) Those with no contact with tourists.
Krippendorf 1987
41. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
A continuum of tourist-host encountersā¦
Krippendorf 1987
42. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
A continuum of tourist-host encountersā¦
Krippendorf 1987
43. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
A continuum of tourist-host encountersā¦
Krippendorf 1987
44. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
A continuum of tourist-host encountersā¦
Krippendorf 1987
45. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
A continuum of tourist-host encountersā¦
Krippendorf 1987
46. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
Soā¦
Tourist-host interaction is:
ļ¼ Complex, and;
ļ¼ Multi-dimensional.
Encounters between tourists and members of the host
community varying according to:
ļ¼ Context;
ļ¼ Roles, and;
ļ¼ Expectations.
Richard Sharpley, 2014
47. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
At one extreme:
Tourists and local people may interact frequently and
fully, with all that implies with respect to perceptions of
and responses to those encounters as well as the
importance of understanding and, if necessary,
managing them.
Richard Sharpley, 2014
48. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
At the other extreme:
Local residents' perceptions of tourism may be based
on limited, if any actual contact with tourists, hence any
exchange being less tangible and lacking reciprocity.
Richard Sharpley, 2014
49. Part 1: Tourist-Host interaction
This mattersā¦
An individualās perception of tourists, tourism, and the
impacts (positive and negative) will to some degree
relate to their contact with tourists in type and
frequency ā and the direct impact of this on their lives
(positive and negative).
Richard Sharpley, 2014
50. Part 2: Resident perceptions
Starting in the 1960s:
As tourism came to be seen by many to be in conflict
with the environment within which it occurredā¦
ā¦the enthusiasm for its economic development
potential became tempered by increasing awareness of
the associated costs.
Richard Sharpley, 2014
51. Part 2: Resident perceptions
Starting in the 1960s, and more so in the 90s & beyond:
Numerous commentators began to draw attention to
the:
ā¢ Economic;
ā¢ Social, and;
ā¢ Environmental.
ā¦āimpactsā of tourism in general.
(e.g. de Kadt 1979; Turner & Ash 1975; Young 1973)
Richard Sharpley, 2014
52. Take a moment to considerā¦
ā¦close your eyes for a moment.
āYou are a resident of a host communityā
How might a tourist impact a place?
Time
53. Break-out session!
In a small group or alone, consider or search:
āYou are a resident of a host communityā
ļ¼ Talk about what changes happen to a place
due to the arrival of tourists.
ļ¼ Discuss either positive or negative impacts
depending on the next graphic...
55. CGTN
We will talk about such alternative forms of tourism
in our last lecture, but for now take away from that
last video - the pros and the cons of MANY types of
tourism, not just mass tourismā¦
58. Part 2: Resident perceptions
Carmichaelās (2000) study of residentsā attitudes and
responses to a āmega resort casino developmentā was
based on a model linking attitudes and behaviours.
She explores the extent to which the positive/negative
attitudes she identifies in the research are subsequently
reflected in actions on the part of residents.
Carmichael
59. Part 2: Resident perceptions
She reveals that neither positive nor negative attitudes
lead to subsequent actions;
The majority of those who support the casino:
āaccept it silentlyā
ā¦whilst the majority of those who express negative
attitudes demonstrate:
āresigned acceptanceā.
Carmichael
60. Part 2: Resident perceptions
Carmichaelās (2000)ā¦
Carmichael
61. Part 2: Resident perceptions
Carmichaelās (2000)ā¦
Carmichael
62. Part 2: Resident perceptions
Soā¦
*Perceptions or attitudes cannot be considered
synonymous with behavioural intent.*
This suggests that contrary to the claim that residents
with negative attitudes towards tourism will withdraw
their support or become antagonistic towards tourists,
there may not exist such a causal relationship.
Residents may not be happy about particular impacts of
tourism, but this does not imply consequential actions
or behaviours on their part.
Carmichael
63. Butā¦
There is a lack of longitudinal studies in this research.
Soā¦ not only may residentsā attitudes transform over
timeā¦
ā¦but so too may their responses.
For example: in Carmichaelās model āresigned
acceptanceā might be replaced by āactive oppositionā or
vice versa as the nature of tourism or tourists in a resort
evolves.
Carmichael
64. Part 2: Resident perceptions
Carmichaelās (2000)ā¦
Carmichael
With time?
66. The following TEDx talk offers a different
perspective on what weāve discussed today.
The speaker immigrated to this place
and came to love it.
He sees tourism as a way to save the placeā¦
This is a unique āhostā perspective and outcome.
67. ā¦but as always, the relationship is complex.
As you watch this consider:
What positive impacts on place would result?
What negative impacts on place would result?
Who should preserve a place, and for whom?
What makes you feel good about this?
What makes you uncomfortable?
68. Also:
What aspects of place in the context of tourism
are supported and challenged here?
70. Take a moment to considerā¦
ā¦close your eyes for a moment.
Think just to yourself about the following
questions once againā¦
Time
71. Againā¦
What positive impacts on place would result?
What negative impacts on place would result?
Who should preserve a place, and for whom?
What makes you feel good about this?
What makes you uncomfortable?
72. Deep dive: One example of local impactsā¦
Earlier the impacts of Airbnb were noted.
As with any tourism development, there are positive
and negative impacts.
Letās look, as just one example, at the impacts of Airbnb
from a few perspectives.
Raconteur 2017
73. Deep dive: One example of local impactsā¦
Raconteur 2017
74. Deep dive: One example of local impactsā¦
Raconteur 2017
75. Deep dive: One example of local impactsā¦
Raconteur 2017
76. Deep dive: One example of local impactsā¦
Raconteur 2017
77. Deep dive: One example of local impactsā¦
Raconteur 2017
78. Take a moment to considerā¦
ā¦close your eyes for a moment.
How is Airbnb good for a community?
What challenges does it present?
Time