ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM: Forging New Ground for

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001. 30:261–83

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM: Forging New

Ground for Ecotourism and Other Alternatives

Amanda Stronza

Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305;

e-mail: Astr[email protected]

Key Words origins of tourism, impacts of tourism, alternative tourism,

conservation, development

■ Abstract Tourism is relevant to many theoretical and real-world issues in anthro-

pology. The major themes anthropologists have covered in the study of tourism may

be divided conceptually into two halves: One half seeks to understand the origins of

tourism, and the other reveals tourism’s impacts. Even when taken together, these two

approaches seemtoproduce only a partial analysis of tourism. The problem is that most

studies aimed at understanding the origins of tourism tend to focus on tourists, and

most research concerning the impacts of tourism tend to focus on locals. The goal of

future research should be to explore incentives and impacts for both tourists and locals

throughout all stages of tourism. This more holistic perspective will be important as

we explore the ways in which ecotourism and other alternative forms of tourism can

generate social, economic, and environmental beneﬁts for local communities while

also creating truly transformative experiences for tourists.

Tourism has some aspects of showbiz, some of international trade in com-

modities; it is part innocent fun, part a devastating modernizing force. Being

all these things simultaneously, it tends to induce partial analysis only.

Victor Turner, 1974

INTRODUCTION

Anthropologists and tourists seem to have a lot in common. Both spend time

exploringthe cultural productionsandrituals of society,andboth carry the statusof

outsider as they make forays into the lives of others. Though as anthropologists we

may be loath to admit any relationship to the sandal-footed, camera-toting legions

in our midst, the truth is that tourism can be an ideal context for studying issues of

political economy, social change and development, natural resource management,

and cultural identity and expression. Indeed, many of the major questions that

concern cultural anthropologists appear in the study of tourism.

Using the lens of tourism, anthropologists have askedmany questions. What are

the cross-cultural meanings of work and leisure (MacCannell 1976; Nash 1981,

0084-6570/01/1021-0261$14.00 261

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

262 STRONZA

1996)? What are the connections between play, ritual, and pilgrimage (Cohen

1972, Graburn 1983, Turner 1982)? What are the dynamics and impacts of inter-

cultural contact between tourists and locals (Machlis & Burch 1983, Nu˜nez 1989,

Rossel 1988, Silverman 2001)? How is culture represented in tourist settings,

and how is it perceived (Adams 1984, 1995; Bruner 1987; Bruner & Kirshenblatt-

Gimblett1994;Urry 1990)? Howare culturaltraditionschanged or reinventedover

time to match tourist expectations (Bendix 1989, Gamper 1981, Leong 1989), and

what can distinguish the genuine from the spurious (Boorstin 1964)? How and

why are ethnic stereotypes constructed and manipulated for tourism (Cohen 1979,

Desmond 1999, MacCannell 1984, Van den Berghe 1994)? How do indigenous

societies change as they become integrated with the tourism market (Mansperger

1995, Seiler-Baldinger 1988)? How do values about culture change once they are

commodiﬁed (Cohen 1988, Greenwood 1977), and how do values about nature

change (Davis 1997, Groom et al 1991, Orams 1999)? How can conserving natu-

ral areas and cultural traditions for tourism lead to beneﬁts for local communities

(Eadington & Smith 1992, Honey 1999, Lindberg 1991)? What are the relations of

power in the context of tourism that determine who wins and who loses (Stonich

2000,Young1999),andwhyis localparticipation relevanttothe successof tourism

(Bookbinder et al 1998, Wunder 1999, Epler Wood 1998)? In seeking to answer

these and other questions, many anthropologists havemade tourism the main focus

of their interpretation and analysis.

Inthis review, Ihighlightseveralofthe keythemesanthropologistshavecovered

in the study of tourism. I suggest that the current literature on tourism may be

dividedconceptually into twohalves, onethat focuses on understanding the origins

of tourism and one that aims to analyze the impacts of tourism. One of my main

points is that both approaches, even when taken together, seem to tell only half the

story. The problem is that many studies about the origins of tourism tend to focus

on tourists, and much of the research directed at the impacts of tourism tend to

analyze just the locals.

Exploring only parts of the two-way encounters between tourists and locals, or

between “hosts and guests,” has left us with only half-explanations. Although we

have theories about the historical origins of tourism (Adler 1989, Towner & Wall

1991), why people travel as tourists in the modern era (MacCannell 1976), or why

some tourists seek particular kinds of destinations and experiences over others

(Cohen 1988), we lack an understanding of why people and host communities

engage in tourism in particular ways. In the absence of analysis, we have been left

with assumptions, and typically what we have assumed is that tourism has been

imposed on locals, not sought, and not invited.

On the ﬂip side, when we examine the impacts of tourism, our work has tended

to focus more on locals than on tourists, and again, we have been left with only

a partial analysis. For example, we have learned several things about the ways

in which host communities tend to change in the aftermath of tourism. Local

economies tend to become either strengthened from employment opportunities

(Mansperger 1995) or made more dependent on tourist dollars (Erisman 1983);

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 263

local traditions and values can either become meaningless (Greenwood 1977) or

moresigniﬁcant(Van denBerghe1994)once theyare commodiﬁed intourism;and

local residents can either bear the brunt of resource degradation (Stonich 2000) or

become the primary stewards of resource protection (Young 1999) in the context

of tourism. We knowpractically nothing, however, about the impacts of tourism on

the tourists themselves. How are they affectedby what they see, do, and experience

during their travels?

These gaps in our understanding can also be characterized in terms of theory

versus data for different kinds of analyses. In their assessments of what motivates

tourists (i.e., the psychosocial factors, material conditions, etc.), several schol-

ars have posited generalizeable theories (MacCannell 1976, Graburn 1983, Nash

1981). Yet, relatively little empirical data has been analyzed to support or refute

suchtheories. Conversely,in theexaminationoftheimpactsoftourism,researchers

have relied much more on data than on theory. Though the literature is well stocked

with ethnographic case studies of tourism’s impacts in host communities, we have

yet to develop models or analytical frameworks that could help us predict the

conditions under which locals experience tourism in particular ways.

I elaborate on these gaps in the literature with greater detail in the following

pages. My main message is that we should be posing new kinds of questions in the

anthropology of tourism, especially as we begin to consider the social, economic,

and environmental merits of ecotourism and other alternative forms of tourism.

In the past decade or so, the tourism industry has taken major shifts toward goals

of economic and ecological sustainability, local participation, and environmental

education. Just as the industry has changed, so too should our research objectives.

I suggest that we devote more attention to two kinds of inquiry. On the host end,

what are some of the factors that can explain particular kinds of local involvement

in tourism? On the guest end, what are the differential effects of certain kinds of

tourism on guests’ attitudes and behaviors, both in the midst of their tour and once

they have returned home?

Throughout the paper I refer primarily to tourism that involves people from

Western developed parts of the world visiting either non-Western or economically

underdeveloped parts of the world. Of course, the tourism industry includes many

othertypesof traveland leisure,includingfamily vacationsto DisneyWorld,group

tours through art museums and battleﬁelds, and honeymoons in Las Vegas. Some

of my discussions are relevant to these other types of tourism, but mostly I make

special reference to international tourism that brings people together from often

highly disparate socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.

ANTHROPOLOGY AND TOURISM

Until the 1970s, few anthropologists showed much academic interest in tourism.

Though tourism was certainly relevant to the peoples and places many anthropolo-

gists were studying, few perceived it as a legitimate focus of analysis (Nash 1996).

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

264 STRONZA

One exceptionwas Nu˜nez, who described weekendtourismin a Mexican village in

1963. In the past two decades, a whole ﬁeld has emerged, complete with refereed

journals, most notably The Annals of Tourism Research, conferences, university

courses, and oft-cited seminal works. One of the best-known pioneering works in

the academic study of tourism is by Smith (1989), ﬁrst published in 1977. Her

volume provided both a preliminary theoretical perspective and 12 case studies

documenting the impacts of tourism. MacCannell (1976) has also been highly in-

ﬂuential, especially for developing a theory of tourism in modern society. Several

key scholars have published ﬁeld-deﬁning articles over the years (Cohen 1972,

1984; Crick 1989; Graburn 1983; Jafari 1977; Nash 1981; Nash & Smith 1991;)

More recent introductory compendiums include those by Burns (1999), Chambers

(1997, 1999), and Nash (1996).

Several factors make tourism especially relevant to anthropology. For one,

tourism occurs in most, if not all, human societies. It is, at least, safe to say that

people in nearly every society have been touched in some way by tourism. Many

anthropologists have witnessed ﬁrst-hand the changes wrought by tourism in their

ﬁeld sites. In fact, tourism seems to occupy at least a subsection in many studies

that otherwise have little to do with tourism per se. Places off the beaten path—the

kinds of places often of most interest to anthropologists—are increasingly opening

to tourism as the international economy globalizes, and as transnational networks

of transportation and communication are improved (Lanfant et al 1995). Today,

tourists are gaining access to even the most remote destinations in the Amazon

(Castner 1990, Linden 1991), the Himalayas (Jayal 1986, McEachern 1995), the

Antarctic (Hall & Johnston 1995, Vidas 1993), and, yes, outer space (Rogers

1998).

The economic importance of tourism has also merited the attention of anthro-

pologists. As Greenwood (1989) noted, tourism is “the largest scale movement of

goods, services, and people that humanity has perhaps every seen” (p. 171). The

World Tourism Organization (2000) estimated that the number of international

tourists traveling in the world in 1999 was 664 million. The International Eco-

tourism Society (1998) calculated that tourism receipts represent one third of the

world trade in services. Such ﬁgures point to the fact that tourism is a signiﬁ-

cant catalyst of economic development and sociopolitical change, processes that

are central to the interests of many anthropologists. Especially among those con-

cerned about sustainable development and conservation, ecotourism has become

a special focus.

Finally, tourism has captured the attention of anthropologists because it often

involvesface-to-faceencounters between people ofdifferentculturalbackgrounds.

Lett (1989) once credited tourism with bringing about “the single largest peaceful

movementof peopleacrosscultural boundariesin thehistoryof theworld”(p. 275).

When tourists and locals come together, both have the opportunity not only to

glimpse how others live, but also to reﬂect on their own lives through the eyes of

others. As a result, these cross-cultural interactions often cue “live performances”

of some of the broadest theoretical issues in anthropology.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 265

Generally,the kindsof questionsanthropologists haveposed abouttourism have

come from one of two stages in what has been called the “touristic process” (Nash

1981). Simply put, the touristic process is the ﬂow of travelers from a “tourist

generating” site, like the United States or Europe, to a travel destination, usually in

some“periphery” country(Jafari 1977;for acritical discussionof howthisﬂowhas

reversed in the age of “ex-primitives” and “postmoderns,” see MacCannell 1992).

Viewing tourism in this vector-like manner, researchers have typically examined

theoriginsoftourism ononeend,and theimpactsoftourism ontheother.Questions

concerningtheorigins oftourismhaveincludedwhatmakesa personatourist, what

motivatestouriststotravel,andwhatdeterminesthekindsofplacesandexperiences

tourists seek? Inquiries on the impacts of tourism have generally focused on the

range of socioeconomic, psychological, cultural, and environmental changes that

tourism has caused in host destinations.

ORIGINS OF TOURISM

Despite its relevance to people almost everywhere, anthropologists have had a

hard time deﬁning tourism (Cohen 1974, Nash 1981). Essentially, a tourist is “a

temporarily leisured person who voluntarily visits a place away from home for the

purpose of experiencing a change” (Smith 1989, p. 2). One topic of interest among

scholars of tourism has been to trace the motives, social proﬁles, and activities of

these “leisured persons” over time. Who are they? Where have they traveled, and

what have they been seeking? (Pearce 1982). A recent historical overview comes

from Lofgren (1999). The pages read much like a travelogue as Lofgren takes his

readers on a tour of the Western holiday world, from the Grand Tour routes of the

eighteenth century, to the “global beaches” of today. His goal is to show how two

centuries of leisure travel have taught us to be tourists and to move,oftenaccording

to social dictate, through different types of “vacationscapes.”

The things tourists do and the experiences they seek have changed over time,

just as they have varied from country to country, and across social categories of

class, gender, and race. Several tourism scholars have sought to explain the psy-

chosocial motives for some of these variations. MacCannell (1976) proposed that

by following in the footsteps of tourists, one can begin to understand the value

systems of the modern world. In fact, by taking tourists as his subject, MacCan-

nell’s purpose was to craft “an ethnography of modern society.” Modernity, for

MacCannell, is characterized by feelings of alienation, fragmentation, and super-

ﬁciality. The search for authentic experiences is a reﬂection of modern tourists’

desire to reconnect with “the pristine, the primitive, the natural, that which is as

yet untouched by modernity” (Cohen 1988, p. 374; see also Dobkin de Rios 1994,

Harkin 1995, Redfoot 1984).

Especially evocative in MacCannell’s work is the idea that tourism can serve

as a unifying force in modern societies, bringing people together to deﬁne collec-

tively the places, events, and symbols that are deemed important and somehow

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

266 STRONZA

meaningful (i.e., “not to be missed”). These might include the Grand Canyon, the

Golden Gate Bridge, and the Eiffel Tower. The act of seeing these “in person”

and then sharing the experience with others through photographs, souvenirs, and

stories allows tourists to reassemble the disparate pieces of their otherwise frag-

mented lives. Through tourism, then, life and society can appear to be an orderly

series of representations, like snapshots in a family album (but see Lippard 1999).

Indeed, Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1998) has interpreted the ways in which tourism

stages and displays the world as a museum of itself. By touring the sites of this

global “museum” tourists can ultimately afﬁrm and reinforce what they think they

already know about the world (Bruner 1991).

Inasimilarvein,Graburn(1989)characterizedtourismasakindofritualprocess

that reﬂects society’s deeply held values about health, freedom, nature, and self-

improvement. In this view, vacations can be interpreted as the modern, secular

equivalent of the annual festivals and pilgrimages in more traditional, religious

societies. Drawing on Durkheim, Graburn analyzed the ritual function of tourism

insociety,especiallyitsroleinbuildingandmaintainingacollectiveconsciousness.

The totems in the modern ritual of tourism appear on the pages of guidebooks, on

websites, and on the surfaces of our souvenirs. Through the collective reverence

of these totems, tourists are able to strengthen their connection to each other as

well as to the larger society.

Turner & Turner (1978) theorized that leisure travel is indeed like a pilgrim-

age, one that can lift people out of the ordinary structures of their everyday lives.

Tourism can offer freedom from work and other obligatory time, an escape from

traditional social roles, and the liberty to spend one’s time however one chooses.

Like other ritual activities, tourism ushers its participants to a state of liminality,

or unstructured “time out of time.” In this way, modern tourism reﬂects the “an-

tistructure” of life, an escape from something, rather than a quest for something

(Turner 1969, 1982). Here then, the importance of authenticity is diminished as

an explanation for what motivates tourists to travel (Bruner 1991).

In other studies related to the origins of tourism, anthropologists have sought to

explain why some kinds of tourism arise in particular types of societies

(Cohen 1972). In this line of research, tourism is conceptualized as a superstruc-

tural phenomenon, dependent on a range of material factors (Nash 1996). The

question becomes what particular social, political, and environmental conditions

in any given society give rise to certain types of leisure travel or particular types

of tourists (Crandall 1980, Dann 1981)? What is it about Japanese society, for

example, that compels its people to favor sightseeing in large groups?

Assessing Local Choices and Constraints

Though anthropologists have delved into the factors that motivate tourists to travel,

they have trained less attention on examining the conditions under which people in

host destinations become involved in tourism. A ﬁrst step in ﬁlling this gap would

be ﬁrst to recognize that not all people in a host destination participate in tourism

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 267

equally. Some members of a local area may participate directly, interacting with

tourists on a regular basis as guides, performers, or artisans, whereas others may

becomeinvolvedonly behindthe scenes, workingas support staff oras wholesalers

of foods and supplies. From an economic perspective, local hosts will also differ

in terms of how much time and energy they invest in tourism: Some will work as

full-time wage laborers, whereas others will contract their labor occasionally or

earn cash only through the sale of goods.

In teasing apart differences in how local hosts participate—or choose not to

participate—intourism,wemaybegintoanalyzetherangeoffactorsthatdetermine

who gets involved, why, and in what ways. Only by asking these latter questions

can we explore what tourism determines in people’s lives and what factors in

people’s lives deﬁne their connection with tourism.

From case studies, we know that gender is one important variable that deter-

mines who within a host community participates in tourism. Swain (1989) found

that gender roles among the Kuna Indians of Panama have shaped the local re-

sponseto tourism.Speciﬁcally, Kunawomen haveproduced molaartwork offabric

appliqu´e, thus maintaining a marketable image of ethnicity to tourists, while Kuna

men control the political decisions that determine Kuna interactions with tourism.

Wilkinson & Pratiwi (1995) found that women in an Indonesian village could not

be involved in tourist guiding because it was not regarded favorably by villagers,

the connotation being that women were perceived as prostitutes interested in con-

tacting foreign tourists. Levy & Lerch (1991) learned more generally that women

tend to work in less-stable, lower-paid, and lower-level jobs in the tourism industry

of Barbados. Gender stereotypes can also result in women being the ﬁrst ones in

a host community contracted to work in tourism. Kinnaird & Hall (1994) found

that the involvement of women in tourism in Ireland has been accepted in a society

where, historically, women’s work has been linked to the roles of wife, mother,

and caretaker of others.

Assessinggenderdifferencesin howhosts participate in tourismis a step toward

improving our understanding of the origins of tourism from the hosts’ perspective

(Swain 1995). However, many questions remain in terms of why and under what

conditions local residents may choose to, or may be driven to, become involved

in tourism. Our understanding would also improve if we examined the extent to

which hosts act as decision-makers in shaping the kinds of tourism that will take

place in their own communities.

The recommendation I make here is not new. In 1981, Nash suggested that

while a local society may unavoidably be affected by tourism “it also may play

a signiﬁcant role in determining the kind of tourists it receives and the form of

tourism they practice” (p. 462). Similarly, Chambers (1999) has pointed out that

“too often we regard the local communities and regions that receive tourists as

being the passive recipients of a tourist dynamic” (p. x), adding that our attempts

to understand tourism solely on the basis of the motives and behaviors of tourists,

“is certain to leave us with only a partial appreciation for what tourism has come

to represent in our time” (p. 22).

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

268 STRONZA

IMPACTS OF TOURISM

In examining the impacts of tourism, anthropologists have often been devoted

to writing ethnographic accounts of how tourism has affected host communities

in a wide range of Western and non-Western settings (Jafari 1990). In general,

anthropologists have conceptualized tourism as determining the fate of hosts in

many ways, such as whether they will develop economically or not, whether they

will feel pride or shame about themselves and their traditions, or whether they will

have incentives to protect or destroy their environment.

Rarelyhavescholars’ opinions aboutthe effectsof tourismon host communities

been positive. Rossel’s (1988, p. 1) comment that “tourists wreak havoc over

the face of the social and cultural landscape” aptly reﬂects the overall sentiment

from anthropologists. Indeed, as Crick noted, tourism has been blamed “for every

value transformation under the sun” (1989, p. 308). An overarching disdain for

tourism was especially prevalent in the years before ecotourism and other forms

of alternative tourism gained recognition.

Economic Change

The pessimism about tourism has not been shared by all social scientists. Par-

ticularly during the 1970s, but also to some extent today (see Schwartz 1997),

economists enthusiastically promoted tourism as an ideal strategy for develop-

ment. Multilateral lending agencies funded touristic infrastructure in the Third

World as a way to increase foreign exchange earnings and raise gross national

product per capita. Especially in the so-called sand, sun, and sea regions, tourism

was seen as having limitless growth potential (Crick 1989). As aid money was

channeled south, the modernizationists of the 1970s applauded tourism as a pow-

erful catalyst for helping the Caribbean and other places “take off” into ﬂourishing

service-based economies.

Despite the early hopes, tourism as a “passport” to macroeconomic devel-

opment did not pan out quite as planned (de Kadt 1979). Rather than alleviate

poverty, tourism seemed to be introducing new kinds of social problems, including

currency black markets, drugs, and prostitution (see Oppermann 1998). In addi-

tion, tourism was associated with luxury spending, overcrowding, and pollution,

all of which were compounding environmental degradation (Honey 1999). Mean-

while,the kindsof infrastructuregovernmentsandaid agencieswere investingin—

golf courses and high-rise hotels—were doing little to alleviate the educational,

health, and welfare needs of local populations (Richter 1982). All the while, proﬁts

from tourism were being siphoned off to industry leaders in developed countries

(Crick 1989). In short, tourism had become a vanguard of neocolonialism (Nash

1989).

At the level of the local economy, anthropologists were learning that tourism

was wreaking other kinds of havoc. For one, wage labor opportunities created

through tourism were disrupting subsistence activities of small producers.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 269

Ethnographic case studies from host destinations around the world showed that

wage labor introduced through tourism raises the opportunity costs of subsistence

activities. Oliver-Smith (1989) described a case in Spain in which local hosts sub-

stituted their labor in farming with work in tourism. Mansperger (1995) analyzed

how tourism among Paciﬁc islanders led to the cessation of subsistence activ-

ities and made locals more dependent on the outside world. Seiler-Baldinger’s

(1988) research in the Upper Amazon attributed declines in health among locals

to the fact that they moved away from subsistence activities to work in tourism.

Rosenberg (1988) argued that tourism contributed to the demise of agriculture

in a small mountain village in France, where grazing animals came to be used

mainly for clearing ski slopes. The disruption of subsistence activities was not

necessarily a problem in itself, but it became a problem when the ﬂow of tourists

was reduced, and people were left with no economic alternatives from which

to sustain themselves. Unfortunately, this was (and still is) a relatively com-

mon phenomenon because the tourism industry is especially prone to boom-bust

cycles.

A second problem anthropologists found with tourism-fueled development is

that it often leads to increased wealth stratiﬁcation in host communities, ulti-

mately sparking or exacerbating social conﬂict. Among the Yapese, Mansperger

found “the Chief is not sharing the entrance fees to the village ... and money is

making people stingy, therefore harming community spirit” (1995, p. 90). Vickers

(1997) related a similar story among the Siona and Secoya of Ecuador, in which

some individuals were working as native entrepreneurs, guiding tourists with

outboard motors and even constructing their own lodges. Problems arose

when those showing the most entrepreneurial spirit were perceived as seeking

personal enrichment without regard for the welfare of the group. In these cases, as

in many others, tourism seemed to contribute to increased social stratiﬁcation and

conﬂict.

Though the literature in the anthropology of tourism currently includes ex-

cellent descriptions of what can go wrong when tourism is introduced into local

communities, the analysis so farhas been strangely devoid of local voices.We have

learned relatively little about how locals themselves perceive the array of pros and

cons associated with tourism. Often our assumptions have been that locals were

duped into accepting tourism rather than havingconsciously chosen such an option

for themselves. Compounding the absence of local perspective has been a lack of

rigor in terms of analyzing the pure effect of tourism on new problems and/or im-

provements in host communities. Although it may be true that tourism precipitates

conﬂict in host communities, it also may be true that other factors in any given

destination site, such as the construction of a road, or the proclamation of a new

protected area, have caused conﬂicts. In general, anecdotal case studies of tourism

often suffer the problem of reversed causality. For example, although tourism may

cause increased wealth stratiﬁcation in some communities, perhaps people who

live in places where wealth differences are already marked are somehow more

likely to become involved in tourism.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

270 STRONZA

Social and Cultural Change

In addition to economic development, intercultural contact and the changes that

result from it have been an especially pervasive theme in studying the impacts

of tourism (Nash 1996). An early example came from Nu˜nez (1963, p. 347),

who described tourism as a “laboratory situation” for testing how acculturation

occurs when urban tourists representing “donor” cultures interact with host pop-

ulations in “recipient” cultures. Though anthropologists may shy away from the

now politicized term acculturation, the concept behind it is still present in public

and academic discourses on tourism in indigenous communities. Acculturation is

what many fear will happen with the intrusion of tourists, consumerism, and the

“commodiﬁcation of culture” (e.g., Chicch´on 1995, McLaren 1997, Rossel 1988,

Seiler-Baldinger 1988).

“Commodiﬁcation of culture” has been used to describe a process by which

things come to be evaluated primarily in terms of their exchange value, in a context

of trade, thereby becoming goods (Cohen 1988). Greenwood (1977) used the

concept of commodiﬁcation in association with tourism to describe how the alarde

festivalin theBasquetownofFuenterrabialostitsculturalandsymbolicmeaningto

locals once it had been opened to tourists and marketed like any other commodity.

The concern among many tourism scholars has been whether a cultural item or

rituallosesmeaning forlocalsonceithas beencommodiﬁed.Does theitembecome

material property of the highest bidder rather than a spiritually, ceremonially, or

in some other way signiﬁcant artifact of the host culture? In applying this question

to Australian Aboriginal bark paintings, Hall (1994), for example, found that once

the paintings had been marketed to international consumers, they were uprooted

from their traditional social and cultural context, and thus lost signiﬁcance for

locals. Picard (1990) asserted that Balinese culture has been so commodiﬁed that

the distinction between what is Balinese and what is attributable to tourism is no

longer clear, even to the Balinese themselves.

Oftenentangled indiscussions ofcommodiﬁcationis theidea thatpeople inhost

destinations will lose their cultural identity as a result of tourism. Many worry that

tourism may cause hosts to forget their past or “lose their culture” as they adopt the

newlifestyles and waysof being theylearn from outsiders. Erisman has arguedthat

the massive inﬂux of foreign goods, people, and ideas to rural host destinations has

a negative impact, which, ultimately, “erodes people’s self-esteem” (1983, p. 350).

In this view, tourism can lead to a kind of “cultural dependency” in which local

people gain economic beneﬁts, but only as they are catering to the needs of out-

siders. Loss of identity occurs in this scenario as the local economy improves and

hosts begin to act and think like tourists, whom they perceive as superior in every

way. In other studies as well, commodities have been seen as an especially cor-

ruptive force among indigenous peoples. Reed (1995) noted that commodities are

perceived as pulling people “deeper into the dark vortex of commercial activities

and spewing them out on the other side of the ethnic boundary into the harsh light

of national societies and the international economy” (p. 137).

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 271

Other scholars perceive tourism as affecting local identity through the con-

veyance of expectations. According to this view, tourists shape the outcome of

touristic encounters by giving preference to locals who look and behave in ways

that are authentically indigenous or ethnic. A problem here is that authenticity

is a subjective concept, and tourists often deﬁne for themselves what is authen-

tic, relying on popular stereotypes as points of reference rather than on historical

or ethnographic facts (Adams 1984, Crick 1989). Boorstin (1964) described en-

counters between tourists and locals as “pseudo-events” that are based on what

tourists choose to see rather than on what is really there. What tourists choose

to see is, in turn, strongly inﬂuenced by the marketing efforts of tour operators

(Silver 1993), the popular media (Urry 1990), and the state (Volkman 1990). In an

analysis of travel brochures, Rossel (1988, p. 5) found “exaggerations, misleading

statements, and lies” that provided a certain way of understanding the reality, and

that offeredthe “tourist view.” Adams (1984, p. 470) has arguedthat brochures and

travel agents essentially provide tourists with a ﬁrst glimpse of the locals through

“prepackaged ethnic stereotypes,” which later are either reiﬁed or dismantled dur-

ing the tourists’ journeys. Especially in developing countries, the state has also

played a key role in framing ethnicity for tourism, partly as a way to build national

solidarity, and partly as a strategy to attract foreign tourists (Matthews & Richter

1991).

In theory, tourists’ stereotypes are transmitted to locals through what Urry

(1990, 1996) has called “the tourist gaze.” A simplistic rendering of this idea is

that tourists wield power through the way they look at locals and expect them

to appear and behave. In turn, locals acquiesce to the gaze by mirroring back

images they hope will please tourists. The long-term implication is that locals

will maintain, or at least act out, traditions they are sure will satisfy and attract

more tourists. MacCannell (1984) has referred to this process as “reconstructing

ethnicity.” Indeed, locals may consciously try to match visitors’ expectations of

whatis authentic,evenifthe resultsseemcontrivedorfake.Evans-Pritchard(1989)

wroteofa Native Americanwoman who feltshe had to “look‘Indian’in order tobe

accepted as authentic by the tourists on whose dollars she depends” (p. 97). Cohen

(1979, p. 18) described locals who “play the natives” to live up to the tourists’

image.

This “playing up” has not always been described by anthropologists as a nega-

tive trend. If the tourist gaze does indeed have power to act as a mirror and, ulti-

mately, transform the identity of the people gazed on, then, some scholars argue,

tourism has as much potential to revive old valuesas it does to destroy them. Smith

(1982),for example,hasfound thattourism may“serveto reinforceethnicidentity”

(p. 26). Also, Mansperger (1995) suggested that tourism “can help native people

maintain their identity” (p. 92). Van den Berghe (1994) wrote that tourism can lead

to “a renaissance of native cultures or the recreation of ethnicity” (p. 17). Tourism

then can become an empowering vehicle of self-representation, and locals may

purposely choose to reinvent themselves through time, modifying how they are

seen and perceived by different groups of outsiders (Cohen 1988).

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

272 STRONZA

Two studies from the 1980s exemplify well how locals may consciously alter

their appearance to please tourists. In one, Gamper (1981) found that people in

southern Austria began to change their clothes for tourism. In normal routines,

locals were wearing outﬁts typical of any other place in Europe, but during the

tourist season, people became conscious of the need to don traditional costumes.

Yet even the costumes were adjusted. Though originally brown, black, and white,

a bright red vest was added later because, as one informant explained, “[r]ed

looks better on Kodachrome” (p. 439). In another study, Albers & James (1983)

examined 600 postcard images of Native Americans issued between 1900 and

1970. They discovered that the images changed with the growth of tourism in

the American West, and that representations of Indians were increasingly tailored

to match tourists’ expectations. The most striking change was the disappearance

of images that showed Indians in their normal surroundings and everyday dress.

Increasingly, the pictures conformed to a stereotypic image, “derived from the

equestrian, buffalo-hunting, and tipi-dwelling Indians of the nineteenth century”

(p. 136) (see also Mamiya 1992).

Turning Back the Gaze

Anthropologistshavearguedthathost-guest interactionstendto beasymmetricalin

terms of power, and that guests have the upper hand in determining how any given

encounter will unfold. Further, ethnographic accounts have shown that the gaze

of tourists can be especially inﬂuential in determining how hosts look, behave,

and feel. Generally, hosts are portrayed in these interactions as passive, unable

to inﬂuence events, as if they themselves were somehow physically locked in

the gaze. Missing in these analyses is the possibility that locals can, and often

do, play a role in determining what happens in their encounters with tourists. A

notable exception is found in the ethnographic work of Silverman (2001), who has

consciously foregrounded the abilities of the Iatmul people of Papua New Guinea

“to act with intention and strategy,” and to exercise creativity in the context of their

interactions with outsiders (p. 105).

Also missing from many current analyses is an attempt to learn more about the

dynamics of host-guest interactions by observing and talking with people on both

sides of the encounter. Evans-Pritchard (1989) noted that academics have largely

ignored the subject of how locals perceive outsiders. Although a vast literature

exists on the subject of local responses to social changes wrought by tourists,

relatively fewstudieshaveexploredtheattitudes andideas oflocal residentstoward

outsiders.

Kincaid (1988) took an important step toward ﬁlling the gap by writing plainly

and explicitly about her anger and resentment toward tourists who visit the Carib-

bean island of Antigua. Kincaid is an Antiguan herself, and her prose emanates

from an insiders’ perspective. It is not surprising that her depiction of Antigua is at

odds with the ones often found in tourism brochures. She writes, “[T]he Antigua

that I knew, the Antigua in which I grew up, is not the Antigua you, a tourist,

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 273

would see now” (1988, p. 23). With acerbic wit, she assures Antigua’s visitors,

“[Y]ou needn’t let that slightly funny feeling you have from time to time about

exploitation, oppression, domination develop into full-ﬂedged unease, discomfort;

you could ruin your holiday” (p. 10). It is strange that comments such as these

from people in host destinations, though laden with meaning, are largely absent

from the literature.

In her own research, Evans-Pritchard found that Native Americans often use

ethnic-based humor to ridicule tourists, burlesquingoutsiders by “exaggerating the

already overblown stereotypes of a group ” (1989, p. 96; see also Laxson 1991).

In another study, Howell (1994) observed that locals can reap enjoyment from

toying with tourists who are “relatively ignorant of local conditions, and thus often

appear incompetent, ridiculous, gullible, and eminently exploitable” (p. 152). In

addition to “toying with tourists,” locals may be active agents in determining what

they want to preserve, purposely inventing traditions and/or folk art for tourists,

yet entirely cognizant themselves of what is real or staged, authentic or spurious.

Evans-Pritchard(1989)learnedthatIndiansilversmithsoftenusetraditionalﬁgures

and symbols to create the right aesthetic effect for their pieces. Yet they also

make up stories about the art, consciously capitalizing on the tourists’ hopes to

ﬁnd meaning and cultural signiﬁcance in everything they see. This enterprising

behavior seems to contradict the notion that locals are passive victims, caught

unaware as they lose themselves and their culture to commodiﬁcation and the

intrusive gaze of outsiders.

Even in cases where local hosts are changing aspects of their identity or their

lives to appeal to tourists, they may not necessarily be losing their culture or their

ability to judge for themselves what is spurious and genuine. To the contrary,

local hosts may feel empowered by interactions with outsiders to redeﬁne who

they are and what aspects of their identity they wish to highlight or downplay.

In the midst of reviving the past or inventing traditions, locals may be quite con-

scious of the fact that they are presenting cultural displays to tourists and not

exposing the truly meaningful symbols and rituals of their private and “backstage”

lives.

Davis (1997) used ethnographic methods to reveal how Sea World produces

very carefully controlled experiences and images for visitors. In adopting a hosts’

perspective—in this case, a large corporate host—Davis has presented a potential

modelforhowotherresearchersmightexploretourisminsmallerhostcommunities

around the world. Questions might include, What are locals consciously doing

to manipulate certain kinds of images or evoke particular feelings among their

guests? An example of this kind of work is Adams (1995), who has examined how

the Torajan people of Indonesia have manipulated tourism for their own political

ends. Foryears, the Torajans havebeen studied and scrutinized both by tourists and

anthropologists. Adams found that the local response to such global attention has

beentocapitalizeonitasameanstoachievelocalobjectives.Appropriately,Adams

describes the Torajans as “active strategists” and “ingenious cultural politicians”

in the context of tourism.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

274 STRONZA

With only a few exceptions, research in the anthropology of tourism has over-

lookedtheoriginsandmotivationsoftourism fromthehosts’perspective.Although

many anthropologists have eloquently portrayed the ways in which tourism has

changed the lives of locals, we have neglected to turn the analysis around and to

imagine how hosts might be affecting guests. This trend may change as we shift

awayfrom assuming that tourism is always imposed on passive and powerlesspeo-

ple. Evenin cases wherethe forced and exploitativenature of tourismisirrefutable,

we may begin to probe more deeply into understanding how locals themselves are

perceiving the imposition, rather than continuing to rely on our own perspectives

as anthropologists.

ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF TOURISM

In the 1970s and 1980s, review articles on the study of tourism often asked why

anthropologists were avoiding tourism as a legitimate subject of analysis. Today,

the question might be the opposite: Why are anthropologists paying so much

attention to alternative forms of tourism? Especially in the past decade, tourism

has gained a much more positivereputation among social scientists, environmental

conservationists, development practitioners, and indigenous rights activists. This

is because an expanding group of new tourism companies, often in partnership

with nongovernmental organizations, now claims to go easy on the environment

and on indigenous peoples, even as they strive for proﬁt. These companies label

their excursions variously as “ecotourism,” “community-based tourism,” “cultural

tourism,” or simply “alternative tourism.”

Generally deﬁned, alternative tourism includes “forms of tourism that are con-

sistent with natural, social, and community values, and which allow both hosts

and guests to enjoy positive and worthwhile interaction and shared experiences”

(Eadington & Smith 1992, p. 3). This new brand of tourism has grabbed the atten-

tion of scholars concerned with recent agendas to link conservation and develop-

ment (e.g.,Guillen1998, Lamont 1999, Sills 1998, Stronza 2000,Wildes1998). At

least a couple of newjournals, including the Journalof Ecotourism and the Journal

of Sustainable Tourism, have begun to focus on the possibilities and limitations of

alternative tourism. In general, the literature seems more balanced than did earlier

research on tourism. At least anthropologists are not automatically condemning

the impacts of tourism on local communities. If anything, perhaps the scale has

tilted in the other direction. Now the tendency seems to be to applaud tourism as a

panacea for achieving a wide array of social, economic, and environmental goals.

Munt (1994) observed that “[w]hile mass tourism has attracted trenchant criticism

as a shallow and degrading experience for Third World host nations and peoples,

new tourism practices have been viewed benevolently” (p. 50).

Ecotourism has gained a lion’s share of the attention aimed at alternative travel.

An early publication on ecotourism commissioned by the U.S.-based environmen-

tal group, Conservation International, identiﬁed ecotourism as “a form of tourism

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 275

inspired primarily by the natural history of an area, including its indigenous cul-

tures” (Ziffer 1989). In the ideal scenario, ecotourists’ nonconsumptive use of and

appreciation for the natural and cultural resources of an area can contribute at-

tention and revenue to local conservation efforts while also providing economic

opportunities to local residents (Sherman & Dixon 1991). This linkage of goals

has also meant that the applied research of anthropologists has become critical to

the planning and implementation of tourism projects around the world.

Conservationistsarebothoptimisticand skepticalthatecotourismmay helppro-

tect nature while meeting the economic needs of local residents (Barkin 1996, Boo

1990, Cater & Lowman 1994, Honey 1999, Lindberg 1991, Lindberg & Enriquez

1994, Orams 1999, Whelan 1991). Relative to other activities, such as hunting,

logging, or agriculture, ecotourism seems to have a low impact on ecosystems

(Groom et al 1991, Kusler 1991), and ideally revenues from ecotourism may be

channeled into conservation and local development needs. But critics counter that

too much ecotourism, particularly if it is unmonitored and unregulated, may spoil

natural areas and disturb both wildlife and people (Begley 1996, Giannecchini

1993). Some also fear that the rhetoric of ecotourism is a guise for business as

usual. Vickers (1997) has stressed that “much of what passes for ‘ecotourism’

is comprised of business ventures whose aim is to maximize the proﬁts of tourist

agenciesand professionalguides” (p.1). Theimplication isthat thequestfor proﬁts

occludes any intention to protect nature or improve the lives of local people.

In the midst of the debates over the good and bad of ecotourism, the themes

of local participation and local ownership of touristic infrastructure have assumed

new importance (Eadington & Smith 1992). Increasingly, local communities are

joiningin partnershipswith governmentagencies, nongovernmentalorganizations,

and private tour companies to plan tourism strategies and develop new attractions

forvisitors. Asaresult,localhosts aregaining muchmore controloverhowtourism

affects their communities.

Despite the new attention on alternative tourism and local decision making in

tourism, the same conceptual and analytical weakness found in studies on con-

ventional tourism remain. Advocates of ecotourism, for example, are focused on

the notion that appropriate kinds of tourism will lead to positive impacts for local

communities and ecosystems, and that particular touristic inputs will result in the

most desirable outcomes both for people and natural areas. The ecotourism litera-

ture is ﬁlled with guidelines and “best practices” for achieving success (Ceballos-

Lascurain 1996). A collection of papers presented at the Yale School of Forestry’s

Conference on Ecotourism (Miller & Malek-Zadeh 1996), for example, focused

on “strategies” and “parameters of success” for developing ecotourism projects.

The ideas are generally prescriptive, arguing that if the ecotourism industry were

to provide the right inputs, such as “a participatory approach,” then the negative

impacts of tourism on local hosts could be reduced. The emphasis remains, how-

ever, on what is external to a site, rather than on what the existing conditions

might reveal about whether tourism will have a positive or negative impact on

local residents.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

276 STRONZA

Just as we lack an understanding of how hosts participate in the origins of con-

ventional tourism, we also know relatively little about how and why local hosts

get involved in ecotourism. Although locals may not be ﬁnancing new infrastruc-

ture or negotiating directly with international travel agencies, they are nevertheless

affecting what happens on the ground in many ecotourism sites. In cases where

locals are opposed to ecotourism, for example, they may express their opposition

by vandalizing infrastructure. Also, by hunting or clearing trails in areas around

an ecolodge, locals can sabotage the image of pristine nature many ecotourism

lodges promote. Bennett (1999) described a case in Panama in which members of

the Kuna protested outsiders’ investment in tourism by burning a hotel twice, and

attacking one of the hotel owners. Belsky (1999) wrote about a similar example in

the village of Maya Center in Belize, where the locals burned a handicraft center.

Local residents can also decide the fate of an ecotourism operation by playing

competitor companies off on each other, setting the conditions under which they

will tolerate or welcome the inﬂux of tourists. If several companies are competing

for the same acceptance of a community, they may become involved in battles over

who can provide the best beneﬁts, a situation in which the locals are determining,

to some extent, the operating costs of the companies. In these ways, local hosts

can inﬂuence the success or failure of tourism, regardless of the external inputs

and intentions of outsider consultants.

From Both Sides Now

In current efforts to make tourism participatory and to involve local residents

as decision makers in tourism projects, anthropologists can make a signiﬁcant

contribution to the ﬁeld by focusing more attention on the reasons local residents

choose to, or are able to, become involved in tourism. This information will be

important if we consider that the right external inputs are probably necessary, but

not sufﬁcient for ensuring the beneﬁts of tourism for locals. Prevailing conditions,

such as the structure of local political and economic institutions, ethnic relations,

gender stereotypes, and the subsistence labor obligations of local would-be hosts

may be particularly relevant.

A few scholars have already advanced hypotheses about local conditions most

conducive to successful community based tourism. For example, Smith (1989)

wrote, “Tourism is especially favored where signiﬁcant segments of the popula-

tion have minimal education or technical skills, inasmuch as other industries may

require extensive training” (p. xi). In 1996, King & Stewart (1996) hypothesized

that “[p]ositive impacts of ecotourism are likely to be the greatest when the in-

digenous culture is already in a state of decline as a result of natural resources

scarcity” (p. 299). These are precisely the kinds of assumptions we may want to

explore in the future. Although we now have many solid descriptive analyses of

what happens when tourism is introduced to communities, we lack comparison

across sites to analyze both the internal and external factors that determine why

we ﬁnd certain kinds of interactions with tourism in particular settings.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 277

As with conventional tourism, we also lack information about the impacts of

ecotourism on tourists. Researchers have invested considerable effort into the im-

pacts of ecotourism on hosts, and much hope is pinned on the possibility that

ecotourism will provide the economic incentive for hosts to maintain and protect

the natural sites and cultural traditions tourists come to see. Less effort has been

invested in analyzing the incentives ecotourism offers to tourists to change their

ownperspectivesand behaviors.This gap in the research existsdespite the fact that

a signiﬁcant goal of ecotourism is to raise environmental and cultural awareness

among tourists.

We do not know, for example, what kinds of travel heightens consciousness or

educates people in particular ways. We do know a lot about how tourists feel in

terms of theiraccommodations—mostcompanies request posttravelevaluations—

but we do not know how their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors change as a result

of what they have seen in host destinations. We could ask many questions related

to this issue. For example, do ecotourists consider running less tap water at home

once they have seen how difﬁcult it is for people to collect water in remote destina-

tions they have visited? Do they begin to recycle more often? More fundamentally,

do their values change? What kinds of impressions are generated from different

kinds of touristic experiences? How can tourism and recreation be linked more

explicitly with learning? Despite the relevance of these questions to the goals of

alternative tourism, we are lacking studies that track the attitudes, much less the

behaviors, of tourists before and after they have traveled to a host site. Two models

for how we might proceed come from Orams (1997) and Jacobson (1995).

CONCLUSION

I have discussed the reasons tourism can be a fascinating subject of study for

anthropologists. Despite its association with things shallow and frivolous, tourism

is relevant to many theoretical and real-world issues in anthropology. For people in

host destinations, tourism is often the catalyst of signiﬁcant economic and social

change, the context for cross-cultural encounters, and the stage-like setting for

displays and recreations of culture and tradition. For the tourists, tourism can be

a ritual form of escape from the structure of everyday life, or it can represent a

symbolic quest for the kinds of authentic experiences that elude modern society.

For anthropologists, tourism can be a lens through which to explore issues of

political economy, social change and development, natural resource management,

and cultural identity and expression. Current scholarship on tourism is somewhat

lopsided. In examining the origins of tourism—what motivates tourists to travel,

and what determines where they go—anthropologists have focused signiﬁcant

attention on tourists, almost to the exclusion of locals. As a result, we know little

about the motivations of people in host destinations to become involvedin tourism,

or to promote certain kinds of tourism over others. Too often, we have assumed

that tourism is imposed on hosts rather than invited.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

278 STRONZA

In exploring the impacts of tourism, anthropologists have tilted in the opposite

direction. Researchers have analyzed extensively, usually by way of ethnography,

the impacts of tourism on hosts, and we have many case studies describing the

effects of tourism on the economy and on the cultural identity of hosts. But we are

lacking information about the impacts tourism can have on guests. Too often, we

have assumed that hosts are relatively passive and that their disadvantaged position

under the powerful gaze of tourists precludes locals from shaping the encounters

with tourists.

An interest in alternativeforms of tourism, particularly ecotourism, has boomed

in recent years. Proponents have posited that the participation of local residents

can be critical to maximizing economic, environmental, and social beneﬁts of

tourism. Despite this attention to the active role of local residents, researchers

tend to emphasize the importance of external inputs, rather than on the prevailing

motivations or constraints of locals, to enhance the success of tourism. Advocates

for ecotourism have also suggested that tourism can be educational for tourists, and

that the right kinds of touristic experiences can result in increased environmental

awareness and cultural sensitivity among tourists. Although we are optimistic

about the possibility of raising consciousness through tourism, few scholars have

analyzed how tourists’ attitudes actually do change as a result of particular kinds

of experiences.

The goal of future anthropological research in tourism should be to ﬁll the gaps

in our current understanding. We should know the full story of what happens to

both hosts and guests throughout all stages of their journeys and cross-cultural

interactions. This will be especially true as we strive to develop the kinds of

tourism that can generate a range of beneﬁts for hosts as well as educational and

transformative experiences for guests.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Irma McClaurin, Marianne Schmink, Ricardo Godoy, and Rus-

sell Bernard for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. I have

also beneﬁted greatly from discussions with the students in my Fall 2000 course,

“Anthropology of Tourism and Ecotourism” at Stanford.

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org

LITERATURE CITED

Adams KM. 1984. Come to Tana Toraja, “Land

oftheHeavenlyKings”:Travelagentsasbro-

kers in ethnicity. Ann. Tour. Res. 11:469–

Adams KM. 1995. Making-up the Toraja? The

appropriation of tourism, anthropology, and

museums for politics in upland Sulawesi, In-

donesia. Ethnology 34:143–54

AdlerJ.1989.Originsofsightseeing.Ann.Tour.

Res. 16:7–29

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 279

Albers PC, James WR. 1983. Tourism and the

changing photographic image of the Great

Lakes Indians. Ann. Tour. Res. 10:123–48

Barkin D. 1996. Ecotourism: a tool for sus-

tainable development in an era of inter-

national integration? See Miller & Malek-

Zadeh 1996, pp. 263–72

Begley S. 1996. Beware of the humans (eco-

tourism is hurting ecosystems). Newsweek

127:52–54

Belsky JM. 1999. Misrepresenting communi-

ties: the politics of community-based rural

ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize.

Rural Sociol. 64:641–66

Bendix R. 1989. Tourism and cultural displays:

inventing traditions for whom? J. Am. Folk.

102:131–46

Bennett J. 1999. The dream and the reality:

tourism in Kuna Yala.Cult. Surviv. Q.23:33–

Boo E. 1990. Ecotourism: The Potentials and

Pitfalls, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: World

Wildlife Fund

Bookbinder MP, Dinerstein E, Rijal A, Cauley

H, Rajouria A. 1998. Ecotourism’s support

of biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol.

12:1399–404

Boorstin D. 1964. The Image: A Guide to

Pseudo-Events in America. New York:

Harper & Row

Bruner EM. 1987. Of cannibals, tourists, and

ethnographers. Cult. Anthropol. 4:438–45

Bruner EM. 1991. Transformation of self in

tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 18:238–50

Bruner EM, Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B. 1994.

Maasai on the lawn: tourist realism in East

Africa. Cult. Anthropol. 9:435–70

Burns PM. 1999. An Introduction to Tourism

and Anthropology. London: Routledge

Castner J. 1990. Pay your respects to the rain-

forest. Sierra 75:82–84

Cater E, Lowman G, eds. 1994. Ecotourism: A

Sustainable Option? Chichester, UK: Wiley

Ceballos-Lascurain H. 1996. Tourism, Eco-

tourism, and Protected Areas: the State of

Nature-Based Tourism Around the World

and Guidelines for its Development. Gland,

Switzerland: Int. Union Conserv. Nat.

ChambersE,ed.1997.Tourism and Culture:An

Applied Perspective. New York: State Univ.

Chambers E. 1999. Native Tours: The An-

thropology of Travel and Tourism. Prospect

Heights, IL: Waveland

Chicch´on A. 1995. Gesti´on de Bases: Expe-

riencias y propuestas sobre la participaci´on

de poblaciones ind´ıgenas en la operaci´on

tur´ıstica en la Amazon´ıa peruana. Med. Am-

bient., Feb:19–21

Cohen E. 1972. Towards a sociology of inter-

national tourism. Soc. Res. 39:164–82

Cohen E. 1974. Who is a tourist?: a conceptual

clariﬁcation. Soc. Rev. 22:527–55

Cohen E. 1979. The impact of tourism on the

Hill Tribes of Northern Thailand. Int. Asien-

forum 10:5–38

Cohen E. 1984. The sociology of tourism: ap-

proaches, issues and ﬁndings. Annu. Rev. So-

ciol. 10:373–92

Cohen E. 1988. Authenticity and commoditi-

zation in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 15:371–

Crandall R. 1980. Motivations for leisure. J.

Leis. Res. 12:45–54

Crick M. 1989. Representations of interna-

tional tourism in thesocial sciences: sun,sex,

sights, savings, and servility. Annu. Rev. An-

thropol. 18:307–44

Dann G. 1981. Tourist motivation:an appraisal.

Ann. Tour. Res. 8:187–219

Davis SG. 1997. Spectacular Nature: Corpo-

rate Culture and the Sea World Experience.

Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

de Kadt E, ed. 1979. Tourism: Passport to De-

velopment? New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Desmond J. 1999. Staging Tourism. Chicago:

Univ. Chicago Press

Dobkin de Rios M. 1994. Drug tourism in the

Amazon: why Westerners are desperate to

ﬁnd the vanishing primitive. Omni 16:6

Eadington WR, Smith VL, eds. 1992. Tourism

Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the

Developmentof Tourism. Philadelphia: Univ.

Penn. Press

Epler Wood M. 1998. Meeting the Global

Challenge of Community Participation in

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

280 STRONZA

Ecotourism: Case Studies and Lessons from

Ecuador, Work. Pap. No. 2. Washington,

DC: Am. Verde, Lat. Am./Carib. Div., US-

AID/TNC

Erisman HM. 1983. Tourism and cultural de-

pendency in the West Indies. Ann. Tour. Res.

10:337–61

Evans-Pritchard D. 1989. How “they” see “us”:

Native American images of tourists. Ann.

Tour. Res. 16:89–105

Gamper J. 1981. Tourism in Austria: a case

study of the inﬂuence of tourism on ethnic

relations. Ann. Tour. Res. 8:432–46

Giannecchini J. 1993. Ecotourism: new part-

ners, new relationships. Conserv. Biol.

7:429–32

GraburnN. 1983. The anthropology of tourism.

Ann. Tour. Res. 10:9–33

Graburn N. 1989. Tourism: the sacred journey.

See Smith 1989, pp. 21–36

Greenwood DJ. 1977. Tourism as an agent of

change: a Spanish Basque case. Ann. Tour.

Res. 3:128–42

Greenwood DJ. 1989. Culture by the pound:

an anthropological perspective on tourism as

cultural commoditization. See Smith 1989,

pp. 171–85

Groom MA, Podolsky RD, Munn CA. 1991.

Tourism as a sustained use of wildlife: a case

study of Madre de Dios, Southeastern Peru.

In Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conserva-

tion, ed. JG Robinson, KH Redford, pp. 393–

412. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Guillen HA. 1998. Sustainability of ecotourism

and traditional agricultural practices in Chi-

apas, Mexico. PhD thesis. Univ. Florida,

Gainesville, Fla. 248 pp.

Hall CM. 1994. Tourism and Politics: Policy,

Power and Place. West Sussex, UK: Wiley

Hall CM, Johnston ME, eds. 1995. Polar

Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic

Regions. New York: Wiley

Harkin M. 1995. Modernist anthropology and

tourism of the authentic. Ann. Tour. Res.

25:650–70

Honey M. 1999. Ecotourism and Sustainable

Development: Who Owns Paradise? Wash-

ington, DC: Island

Howell BJ. 1994. Weighing the risks and re-

wards of involvement in cultural conserva-

tionandheritagetourism.Hum.Org.53:150–

Int. Ecotourism Soc. 1998. Ecotourism Statis-

tical Fact Sheet. North Bennington, VT: Int.

Ecotour. Soc.

Jacobson SK, ed. 1995. Conserving Wildlife:

International Education and Communica-

tion Approaches. NewYork: Columbia Univ.

Press

Jafari J. 1977. Editor’s page. Ann. Tour. Res.

5:6–11

JafariJ.1990.Researchand scholarship: the ba-

sis of tourism education. J. Tour. Stud. 1:33–

Jayal MM, ed. 1986. Conservation, Tourism,

andMountaineeringintheHimalayas.Dehra

Dun: Natraj

KincaidJ.1988.A Small Place. NewYork:Pen-

guin

King DA, Stewart WP. 1996. Ecotourism and

commodiﬁcation: protecting people and

places. Biodivers. Conserv. 5:293–305

Kinnaird V, Hall D. 1994. Conclusion: the way

forward. In Tourism: A Gender Analysis, ed.

V Kinnaird, DHall, pp. 210–16. Sussex, UK:

Wiley

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B. 1998. Destination

Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage.

Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Kusler JA, ed. 1991. Ecotourism and Resource

Conservation: A Collection of Papers from

the 1st International Symposium. Berne, NY:

Ecotour. & Resource Conserv. Proj.

Lamont SR. 1999. The effects of ecotourism on

plant resource use and management in Ama-

zonian Peru. PhD thesis. Miami Univ., Mi-

ami, FL. 252 pp.

Lanfant M-F, Allcock JB, Bruner EM, eds.

1995. International Tourism: Identity and

Change. London: Sage

Laxson JD. 1991. How “we” see “them”:

tourism and Native Americans. Ann. Tour.

Res. 18:365–391

Leong WT. 1989. Culture and the state: man-

ufacturing traditions for tourism. Crit. Stud.

Mass Commun. 6:355–75

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 281

Lett J. 1989. Epilogue. In Hosts and Guests: An

Anthropology of Tourism, ed. V. Smith, pp.

275–79. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Penn. Press

Levy DE, Lerch PB. 1991. Tourism as a factor

in development: implications for gender and

work in Barbados. Gend. Soc. 5:67–85

Lindberg K. 1991. Economic Policies for Max-

imizing Nature Tourism’s Contribution to

Sustainable Development. Washington, DC:

World Resour. Inst.

Lindberg K, Enriquez J. 1994. An Analysis

of Ecotourism’s Economic Contribution to

Conservation and Development in Belize.

Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund

Linden E. 1991. Taking a guided tour through

Eden. Time 137:80–81

Lippard LR. 1999. On the Beaten Track:

Tourism, Art and Place. New York: New

Press

Lofgren O. 1999. On Holiday: A History of Va-

cationing. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

MacCannell D. 1976. The Tourist. New York:

Schocken. 2nd ed.

MacCannell D. 1984. Reconstructed ethnicity

tourism and cultural identity in third world

communities. Ann. Tour. Res. 11:375–91

MacCannell D. 1992. Empty Meeting Grounds:

The Tourist Papers. New York: Routledge

Machlis GE, Burch WR. 1983. Relations

between strangers: cycles of structure and

meaning in tourist systems. Sociol. Rev.

31:666–92

Mamiya CJ. 1992. Greetings from paradise: the

representation of Hawaiian culture in post-

cards. J. Commun. Inq. 16:86–102

Mansperger MC. 1995. Tourism and cultural

change in small-scale societies. Hum. Org.

54:87–94

McEachern J. 1995. Prospects for Tourism in

Manaslu. Gland, Switz.: IUCN–World Con-

serv. Union

McLaren D. 1997. Rethinking Tourism and

Ecotravel: The Paving of Paradise and What

You Can Do to Stop It. West Hartford, CN:

Kumarian

MatthewsHG, Richter LK. 1991. Political Sci-

ences and tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 18:120–

Miller JA, Malek-Zadeh E,eds. 1996. The Eco-

tourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts.

New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

Munt I. 1994. Eco-tourism or ego-tourism?

Race Class 36:49–60

Nash D. 1981. Tourism as an anthropological

subject. Curr. Anthropol. 22:461–81

Nash D. 1989. Tourism as a form of imperial-

ism. See Smith 1989, pp. 171–85

Nash D. 1996. Anthropology of Tourism.New

York: Pergamon

Nash D, Smith VL. 1991. Anthropology and

tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 18:12–25

Nu˜nez T. 1989. Touristic studies in anthropo-

logicalperspective.SeeSmith1989,pp.265–

Nu˜nez TA. 1963. Tourism, tradition, and accul-

turation: weekendismo in a Mexican village.

Ethnology 2:347–52

Oliver-SmithA.1989. Tourist developmentand

struggleforlocalresourcecontrol.Hum.Org.

48:345–52

Oppermann M, ed. 1998. Sex Tourism and

Prostitution: Aspects of Leisure, Recreation,

and Work. New York: Cognizant Commun.

Corp.

Orams M. 1999. Marine Tourism: Develop-

ment, Impacts and Management. London:

Routledge

Orams MB. 1997. The effectiveness of environ-

mental education: Can we turn tourists into

“greenies”? Progr. Tour. Hospit. Res. 3:295–

306

Pearce PL. 1982. The Social Psychology of

Tourist Behavior. Oxford: Pergamon

Picard M. 1990. Cultural tourism in Bali: cul-

tural performance as tourist attractions. In-

donesia 49:37–47

Redfoot D. 1984. Touristic authenticity, touris-

tic angst, and modern reality. Qual. Sociol.

7:291–309

Reed R. 1995. Household ethnicity, household

consumption: commodities and the Guaran´ı.

Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 44:129–45

Richter L. 1982. Land Reform and Tourism De-

velopment. Policy-making in the Philippines.

Cambridge, MA: Schenkman

Rogers T. 1998. Space tourism: a response to

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

282 STRONZA

continuing decay in US civil space ﬁnancial

support. Space Policy 14:79–81

Rosenberg H. 1988. A Negotiated World.

Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press

RosselP.1988.Tourism:ManufacturingtheEx-

otic. Copenhagen: IWGIA

Schwartz R. 1997. Pleasure Island: Tourism

and Temptation in Cuba. Lincoln: Univ.

Nebr. Press

Seiler-Baldinger A. 1988. Tourism in the Up-

per Amazon and its effects on the indige-

nous population. In Tourism: Manufacturing

the Exotic, ed P Rossel, pp. 177–93. Copen-

hagen: IWGIA

Sherman PB, Dixon JA. 1991. The economics

of nature tourism: determining if it pays. See

Whelan 1991, pp. 89–131

Sills EO’D. 1998. Ecotourism as an integrated

conservation and development strategy:

econometric estimation of demand by inter-

national tourists and impacts on indigenous

households on Siberut Island, Indonesia.

PhD thesis. Duke Univ., Durham, NC. 324

pp.

Silver I. 1993. Marketing authenticity in third

world countries. Ann. Tour. Res. 20:302–

Silverman EK. 2001. Tourism in the Sepik

River of Papua New Guinea: favoring the lo-

cal over the global. Pac. Tour. Rev. 4:105–19

Smith V. 1982. Tourism to Greenland: renewed

ethnicity? Cult. Surviv. Q. 6:27

Smith V, ed. 1989. Hosts and Guests: The An-

thropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: Univ.

Penn. Press. 2nd ed.

Stonich SC. 2000. The Other Side of Paradise:

Tourism, Conservation, and Development in

the Bay Islands. New York: Cognizant Com-

mun. Corp.

Stronza A. 2000. “Because it is Ours:”

Community-Based Ecotourism in the Peru-

vian Amazon. PhD thesis. Univ. Florida,

Gainesville, Fla. 229 pp.

Swain MB. 1989. Gender roles in indigenous

tourism: Kuna Mola, Kuna Yala, and cultural

survival. See Smith 1989, pp. 83–104

SwainMB. 1995. Gender in tourism. Ann. Tour.

Res. 22:247–66

Towner J. Wall G. 1991. History and tourism.

Ann. Tour. Res. 18:71–84.

Turner V. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure

and Anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine

Turner V. 1974. Dramas, Fields, and Meta-

phors: Symbolic Action in Human Society.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

Turner V. 1982. From Ritual to Theater: The

Human Seriousness of Play. New York: Per-

form. Arts J.

Turner V, Turner E. 1978. Image and Pilgri-

mage in Christian Culture: Anthropological

Perspectives. New York: Columbia Univ.

Press

Urry J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and

Travel in Contemporary Societies. London:

Sage

Urry J. 1996. Tourism, culture and social in-

equality. In The Sociology of Tourism: The-

oretical and Empirical Investigations, ed. Y

Apostolopoulos, S Leivadi, A Yiannakis, pp.

115–33. New York: Routledge

Van den Berghe P. 1994. The Quest for the

Other: Ethnic Tourism in San Crist

obal,

Mexico. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

Vaughan D. 2000. Tourism and biodiversity: a

convergence of interests? Int. Aff. 76:283–98

Vickers WT. 1997. The new invaders: Siona-

Secoya responses to thirty years of tourism.

Presented at 20th Int. Congr. Latin Am. Stu.

Assoc., Guadalajara, Mexico, April 18

Vidas D. 1993. Antarctic Tourism: A Challenge

to the Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty Sys-

tem? New York: United Nations

Volkman TA. 1990. Visions and revisions:

Toraja culture and the tourist gaze. Am. Eth-

nol. 17:91–111

WhelanT,ed.1991.NatureTourism: Managing

for the Environment. Washington, DC: Island

Wildes FT. 1998. Inﬂuence of ecotourism on

conservation policy for sustainable develop-

ment: the case of Costa Rica. PhD thesis.

Univ. Calif., Santa Barbara. 372 pp.

Wilkinson PF, Pratiwi W. 1995. Gender and

tourism in an Indonesian village. Ann. Tour.

Res. 22:283–99

World Tour. Org. 2000. Tourism Highlights

2000. Madrid: WTO. 2nd ed.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

21 Aug 2001 16:31 AR AR141-12.tex AR141-12.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC

ANTHROPOLOGY OF TOURISM 283

Wunder S. 1999. Promoting Forest Conserva-

tion Through Ecotourism Income? A Case

Study from the Ecuadorian Amazon Region.

Bogor, Indonesia: Cent. Int. Forest. Res.

Young EH. 1999. Balancing conservation with

development in small-scale ﬁsheries: Is eco-

tourism an empty promise. Hum. Ecol.

27:581–620

Ziffer K. 1989. Ecotourism: The Uneasy Al-

liance. Washington, DC: Conserv. Int.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001.30:261-283. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY on 04/22/08. For personal use only.