The concept and practice of alternative tourism arose from a response to the impact of mass tourism and as an expression of rebellion and search for adventure.
It involves tourism that respects the values of local people and nature, favoring encounters and exchanges and building experiences.
Definition and Alternatives
With references to Dernoi (1981) and Holden (1984), Smith and Eadington (1994) proposed an inclusive definition of alternative tourism, understood as forms of tourism that are consistent with the natural, social, and community values, allowing positive enjoyment for both hosts and guests and making it worthwhile to share experiences.
Overall, in the promotion (and analysis) of these forms of tourism, the use of concepts such as “culture,” “experience,” “responsibility,” “exoticism,” “primitivism,” “authenticity,” and “sustainability” is often highlighted.
However, all of them are of a highly relative nature, and their own definitions (and applications) become real issues for anthropological analysis in general and tourism analysis in particular.
But such concepts, or rather the broad rhetoric produced on them, will be what defines the complementary products and by-products offered. Besides, it should not be forgotten that destinations, travel agencies, and tour operators try to gain market share and capture specific tourists by creating different expectations or even nuances, so it would be methodologically inappropriate to limit definitions of alternative tourism to certain activities existing today.
If anything differentiates these sophisticated forms of tourism, it is the possibility of increasing their appeal by adding and/or modifying by-products/components of the general product, adapting them to the conditions and requirements of potential tourists and to the investment possibilities and specific features of the businesses (usually small or medium sized) and agencies (governmental or not) involved.
The segregation of alternative tourism into its forms of more or less individualized products paradoxically leads to the typology that Smith (1977) proposed of the different forms of tourism defined in terms of the kind of leisure mobility preferred by tourists.
Comparing this typology with today’s tourism suggests that novelty is not as new as it seems. It is rather the high degree of complexity of the demand and the system itself which, especially by combining the defining elements of each of the five categories from Smith (ethnic, environmental, recreational, cultural, and historical), give the illusion of new tourism forms.
This trend is reflected by potential tourists placed on the modernity/postmodernity dichotomy with concerns, expectations, and consumption patterns shaped by the economic, political, and social circumstances of the developed world in this early
part of the twenty-first century.
It is necessary to differentiate alternative tourists according to their attitudes, motivations, and practices when consuming or defining the tourist experience.
“Direct tourists” (cultural, ethnic, rural, ecotourism, and others included in what is called alternative tourism) refer to those who are curious by nature and, despite the exoticism shown by the destination, need as much as their mass tourism counterparts some familiar features that inspire confidence and security.
These tourists may be eager for knowledge, albeit as nonscientists, but knowledge
based on objective facts. They are willing, in the limited depth allowed by the visit and the information offered, to understand the how and why of the elements shown and to marvel at the whole and wonder at the details.
Concerned about nature and manifestations of cultures intuitively considered to be on the verge of change, imminent loss, or notable shortage and scarcity, these tourists search for signs of identity and the autochthonous side.
This can produce a nostalgic feeling in them that leads to affection for memories, places, and times more imagined than experienced. Therefore, they become promoters of any elements that could be included in their alternative tourism experience.
However, many tourists who consume different products offered as alternative do not consider them as a first option. They have been called “indirect tourists” of culture and nature (identified with package and mass tourism).
They are tourists who use tourism to relax, enjoy the weather, rest, or just change the rhythm of their everyday life. These tourists take part in alternative tourism simply because it is in their way or, even for what it means, in social prestige
to talk about and/or show they have carried out a recognized sociocultural valued activity (i.e., prestige associated with a particular activity).
This type of tourist is the largest consumer of the products offered as alternative. Often identified as hikers, rather than tourists, the use of the product/service is a complementary activity to travel.
Origin and Development of Alternative Tourism
Alternative tourism is a consumer choice that is outside regular tourism channels. Since the consolidation of mass tourism in the late 1970s, there have always been some significant tourism practices which have not followed the usual lines of
purchase and consumption of institutionalized tourism (tour operators, travel agencies, etc.).
This kind of tourism has often been epitomized by drifters, hippies, or adventurers; however, the demand for differentiated and individualized experiences has slowly spread, apparently discerning these consumers from “tourists.”
Generally, alternative tourism involves traveling with the minimum possible cost, coexisting with local people, using traditional local stores, and, occasionally, doing small amounts of craftwork.
Despite their economic contribution to destination areas being limited, these “alternative tourists” or travelers bring with them new ideas and foreign fashions (clothing, lifestyle, drug use, etc.), which reflect many of the major sociocultural impacts of tourism on host populations.
Paradoxically, many of the areas identified by such tourists (Mediterranean coast,
the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, Macaronesia) have now been developed by the tourism industry, and some of these tourists have settled and become business owners.
Economic growth in the 1980s, together with improved means of transport, increased competitiveness and demand for segmentation and favored the rapid appearance of numerous “new forms of tourism” partly inspired by alternative
tourism.
These products have led to greater market flexibility partly by opening up new
areas for tourism development (in product consumption and/or urban development) and partly by offering a broader picture of what customers could expect.
The core idea of alternative tourism is that tourists have a satisfying experience and a genuine experience of nature, culture, people, or a combination of them.
Alternative tourism is usually carried out in sparsely populated areas (uninhabited places or with very low levels of human occupation, nonurban rural environments,
or in small concentrated populations), although monumental-architectural or museum city tours can also be included.
There is a substantial body of literature that has analyzed these forms of tourism and their consequences. However, the pace of market change and the innovations, variations, and combinations offered by destinations demonstrate a socioeconomic and sociocultural reality that is more dynamic than the theories and their goals.
Therefore, to keep abreast of this progress in tourism, as well as to predict the unwanted effects of tourism activity, it is necessary to define, as clearly as possible, what is meant, both from a market and an academic point of view, regarding each of the products offered.
When comparing the numerous case studies, it is noticeable that the characteristics of alternative tourism products and their consequences on visited populations and areas are similar both in their intentions and in their objectives.
All of them refer to themselves, at least in their design, as “soft tourism” (null or low impact). They aim to respect the environment and people and be non-intensive
in terms of number of tourists and infrastructures.
Basically, they have in common their interest in the environment and culture, including in the most extreme cases the former as a reflection of the latter. Therefore, the degree of alternativeness of each type of tourism should be differentiated.
Obviously, from the point of view of the products and their market analysis, this type of simple differentiation would not be worthwhile, in principle, as it would probably need to be greatly expanded.
However, from the need to analyze and compare the implementation and evolution of these alternative products, their use and generated impacts, some generalizations, at least as far as the characterization of the destinations need to be made.
Trends of Alternative Tourism
Whether direct or indirect alternative tourists, it can be observed that under the motivational and market coverage of “alternative,” innovation and entrepreneurship have been emphasized in mature destinations promoting the creation of multiple micro-products, encouraging new forms of tourism businesses and opening up
new territories.
This adaptation of alternative tourism to the global economy is currently seen in the wide range of effects on host communities and territories, even though its practice may be developed with different intensities in small remote villages, in exclusive resorts, or in the themed surroundings of mass destinations.
Its implications, as in other forms of tourism, will vary according to external factors (transport, socioeconomic stability of tourism markets, scope of the projected image, etc.) and internal ones (endogenous or exogenous development of
tourism in the territory, access and ability to control the businesses by local people, levels of governance, level of equality in income distribution).
This can occasionally lead to the formation of elites or the socioeconomic differentiation among hosts.
The concept of alternative tourism has been the basis for discussions on and development of sustainable tourism (mainly in the 1990s) and responsible tourism (back in 2000).
Understanding that tourism activity can be an effective and efficient tool for economic and social development, nowadays, there is a general awareness, although unequal practice, of extending the principles that influenced alternative tourism products (respect, tolerance, conservation, balanced encounters) to
the entire tourism system, that is, the application of accountability criteria with the involvement of the stakeholders in a dialog (interactive process in networks) that enables the adaptation and scale of tourism to environmental and sociocultural conditions of the destination environments, with time-based objectives set for
different degrees of informed and agreed sustainability.
Alternative tourism has contributed to a responsible improvement of tourism by incorporating parameters of social and environmental carrying capacity, as well as by addressing new market segments.
Strictly speaking, alternatives to standardized and packaged tourism products will continue to appear almost at the same rate as the industry absorbs others which were born with the same rebellious and adventurous intention. In a way, the multiple forms of alternative tourism based on the experience, emotions, and feelings of customer will in the medium term continue to complement and renew products in the tourism industry.