In July this year, global anti-tourist sentiments hit a new high, particularly in Europe. In France, just ahead of the Olympics, residents had begun urging visitors not to travel to Paris. There was a lot of chaos owing to the preparation for the world’s largest sporting event, and the fear was that adding millions of visitors would make it that much worse. The authorities expected the city to host 15 million visitors, just for the Olympics. In the end, that figure fell short by some 4.5 million.
In Barcelona, Spain’s most visited city, hostilities escalated to the point where thousands of locals demonstrated, holding up ‘tourist go home’ placards. Some took it even further, going around to restaurants with outdoor seating and spraying the tourists dining there with water guns, forcing them to vacate. Those were only two of a wash of anti-tourist instances.
The events of this summer, though they appear extreme, are by no means unique, nor did they only begin this year. Even before the Covid-19 global pandemic, which devastated the tourism industry with its lockdowns, there had been a souring of relations between locals and tourists in some of the world’s most popular destinations.
New Yorkers, for example, dreaded (and still do) the millions of annual visitors – not just in the summer, but year round – who clog the streets, particularly near attractions. People who live and work near iconic sites like Times Square and the Empire State Building, often find their commute lengthened; walking impeded by tourists taking in the views, posing for photos, or just lost. According to last year’s statistics published by the Office of the New York State Comptroller, some 62 million people visited the ‘Big Apple’, generating US$74 billion in economic activity. This is data the government loves; the people, not so much.
Pre-pandemic also, there had been demonstrations in Barcelona, Palma, Mallorca and San Sebastian in Spain; and restrictions enforced in Florence, Rome, Venice, and Milan, in Italy, as well as Amsterdam in the Netherlands, Croatia and Bulgaria.
Tourism is defined by the Encyclopaedia Britannica as “the act and process of spending time away from home in pursuit of recreation, relaxation, and pleasure, while making use of the commercial provision of services.” This applies to all forms, with medical tourism, which is fairly new, being the exception. As an industry, tourism offers excellent opportunities for emerging economies and developing countries. Job creation, income generation, infrastructure development are among the advantages. Done right, tourism can aid in poverty reduction, environmental conservation, and promotion of cultural traditions. So why is tourism phobia evident in many parts of the world? Perhaps the answer is that in too many cases, the negatives outweigh the positives. To be fair, there are some countries that have managed to secure a balance; they are the exceptions.
Originally mostly enjoyed by the elite and the middle class – travel was expensive – holidays and vacations overseas began to take off with the growth and expansion of the airline industry after World War ll. According to Britannica, at this time governments had also begun to pay interest in tourism as “an invisible import, and as a tool of diplomacy”. Travel agents offered package deals which appealed to the pocket of the working class. Of course, in developed countries, this moved much faster, because as opposed to saving up for a vacation, many were able to purchase tours with credit cards.
On the plus side, governments found that inviting visitors boosted the economy of their countries. However, the drawbacks were almost immediately seen. Locals found that they could no longer enjoy pleasant areas in their own countries. Conglome-rates built hotels and restricted the beach fronts to guests only. Restaurant menus became financially restrictive. Attractions that were previously free suddenly had a cover charge and more often than not were too crowded with foreigners, who were given preference over the residents, or might even have received tickets as part of their package deals. Citizens grumbled, but many accepted these injustices in the belief that because tourism was touted as a means of enriching the country, they would soon be better off.
Instead, the cost for prime land skyrocketed; more hotels were being erected. Housing grew challenging, as landlords realised that they could charge tourists more and reap better monetary benefits from short-term rentals. Locals were priced out and forced to move further and further away from their jobs and schools. They remained in poverty. Current examples of this exist – take a gander at the situation in the Dominican Republic, Mexico or the Maldives. The closest the locals get to the luxury being offered to visitors is serving and cleaning up after them; the latter of which is sometimes an awful chore. To add insult to injury, they are very poorly paid. The discontent and anger are understandable.
Guyana has already seen some of this manifest and not only as a result of the influx of visitors during events like the Cricket Carnival. Property owners, whose greed outweighs decency, have priced out locals to cater to oil workers and other foreigners. For all of the growth of the economy in this country, many people are poorer than ever. Unfortunately, it could actually get much worse.
Over the past few weeks, the Guyana Tourism Authority has hosted a series of workshops in various regions. Some were held in areas where tourist attractions already exist; a boon for communities dealing with high turnover of employees. However, in other areas, one of which is the Berbice River, the GTA said it was there to assess the interest in tourism, evaluate the capacity, and plan next steps for “advancing sustainable tourism development”. On its Facebook page, it posted photos of pristine vistas which appear unspoilt.
Here are a few hints. Not every area has to have tourism. Unspoilt, beautiful areas quickly change status after tourists have tramped all over them. Depending on the regulations and whether they are enforced, the threat to the ecosystems of these pristine areas could be devastating. It might be more prudent to focus on consolidating what already exists, rather than attempting to expand.