platforms: a shift in the approach of tourism from 1950s...

1

PLATFORMS: A SHIFT IN THE

APPROACH OF TOURISM FROM

1950S TO THE 21ST CENTURY

Malathi Iyer1

Recognizing the economic influence of tourism, the positive views of tourism can be found in

many publications of the 1950s and 60s (Jafari 1990) identifying tourism for the reduction in

deficits, development of the financial base of the host’s destination and reducing the

inequalities.

Many studies conducted, particularly from the local’s point of view have not been in favour of

tourism development, particularly when issues such as cultural deterioration, social pressures

and environmental degradation are taken note.

According to Hall (1996) “People seek the economic and employment benefits of tourism but

they are concerned about the negative impact it may have on their culture and many seek to

control access to their environment.”

The effects of tourism development are often questioned with respect to the following (Dogan

1989, Guthunzz and Krosigk1996, Madrigal 1993, Mansfield and Ginosar 1994, Nickerson

1996, UNEP 1996, Pruthi 2006, ICRT 2008):

environmental degradation

commercialization of traditions and folklores

Economic leakage due to dependence on imports

drain of tourism revenue to outsiders

Prevalence of feelings of scarcity due to financial gaps between local residents and

tourists

drain of manpower from the traditional sectors

Decision making is mainly based between large tourism firms and government agencies

1 Dr Malathi Iyer, Associate Professor, Head of Economics Department Vivek College of

Commerce, Mumbai-400104

zijt.zenonpub.com Jan-Jun 2018 ISSN 2581-4958 - Vol I – Issue I

Journal of Tourism and Ethos

2

The tourist industry’s poor image as a low wage payer employer

low status of tourism jobs and

Seasonal Industry.

There has been change of views on tourism and different sentiments and study findings

expressed by Jafari (1990) that, the views on tourism have evolved from advocacy in the 1960s,

to cautionary in the 1970s, adaptancy in the 1980s and knowledge based in 1990s and new

platforms sustainability and ethics in 2000s.

The platforms have common characteristics and parts of the earlier platforms can still be found

today. The views represent shifts in the search for correct approaches to tourism development.

Importance was originally given to the economic significance of tourism (Advocacy) followed

by the pressures that tourism exerts on culture and environment (Cautionary) and later to the

development of an alternative to the subsidized, mass, highly commercialized and firm

structure of tourism (Adaptancy), a holistic approach (Sustainability), prescriptive for

community involvement and local development (Ethics).

First Platform: According to Jafari, two decades fifties and sixties were categorized by an

"advocacy platform," in which holiday business was identified as the model, smokeless

business. Therefore, the more tourism was developed the better and mass tourism was the best

option.

Second Platform: The era of seventies the tourism focus was “cautionary platform," agreed

by many scholars who regarded this sector in general as a Trojan horse proficient of underrating

the environmental, economic and socio-cultural integrity of destinations. (Jafari1990)

Third Platform: The next rational step was described by the "adaptancy" platform of the

1980s. Home stays and farm tourism are two examples of this type of tourism activity.

Mass tourism was believed to be on a big scale, outwardly controlled, high leakage and focused

in high-density tourist areas, alternative tourism was supposed to be minor, locally controlled

and encouraging to the creation of connections with other segments of the local economy and

spread within low-density local regions. Where mass tourism was considered to be inherently

unsustainable, alternative tourism was thought to be fundamentally sustainable. (Clarke 1997



3

PLATFORMS OF TOURISM

Source Compiled from Getz (1987), Jafari (1990), Din (1997), Weaver (1999), Kaufman

(1997) and Macbeth (2005).

The Fourth Platform: A change in attitude was the emergence in the 1990s of a knowledge-

based platform that attempts to apply a more cautious approach and move beyond the platforms

that were based on principles of the past. In this outline, the assessment of a particular tourist

product as good or bad does not depend on scale, but rather on the success of the management

practices that are applied to the situations of each individual destination.

Hence, small- scale alternative tourism may not be feasible and unmanageable under certain

settings, while comprehensive tourism may be workable under other conditions. Once this

possibility of sustainable mass tourism is acknowledged then there is no longer any reason for

opposing that mass tourism and ecotourism are inequitable.

Decades Platform

Numbers

Platform Ideal types Focus of

public

sector

Planning

Approach

1960s First Advocacy Sustained mass

tourism

Foreign

exchange

earnings

Physical

development

1970s Second Cautionary Unsustainable mass

tourism

Employment

and

promotion

Marketing

and

promotion

1980s Third Adaptancy Deliberate alternative

tourism

Economic

multiplier

Community

approach

1990s Fourth Knowledge

based

Sustained mass

tourism/circumstantial

alternative tourism

Sustainable

development

Integrative

approach

2000s Fifth sustainability Empower

communities

Decision

making

Public

participation

2000s Sixth Ethics Community

involvement

Social

policies

Local

development



4

The Fifth Platform: Sustainable tourism is the jingle of the time and is ‘‘attached’’ to

government strategies throughout the world. Sustainable development has changed the political

discussions and has been a part of increasing debate at all levels of environmental social

policies and theory. At the same time, Jacobs (1999) sees it as a advantage that Sustainable

development can appeal to the green development and the traditionalists at the same time. It is

important to validate the complexity, popularity and the significance of the concepts included

by Sustainable development that Jafari’s theory included a fifth platform, one that would

eventually include sustainability as a pattern.

Sustainable development includes four facets when combined into plan and progress the

decision making provides a holistic approach to the question of how societies should develop

(Macbeth 1994).

FIGURE 1.4 ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

1. Ecological Sustainability needs that development be sociable with the self-maintenance

and self-direction of ecological procedures, biological diversity and biological resources.

2. Social Sustainability a prerequisite that development increases people’s control over

their lives and that maintains and strengthens community distinctiveness and unity.

3. Cultural Sustainability requires that expansion preserves and fosters the cultural

significance and practice of the cultures in which it takes place.

4. Economic Sustainability requires that development be economically effective and that

the benefits and costs arising from it be shared equitably.

SUSTAINABILITY•Ecology

•Social

•Economy

•Cultural



5

Common to each dimension and underlying the idea of sustainability is essential and this

ethical position has clear and multifaceted outcomes for decision making at all levels of society.

These four scopes form a concept that, as Jacobs (1999) and Duffy (2002) assert, is widely

accepted as a general or framework level of analysis.

Ethical positions of what each stakeholder values and how each prioritizes those values. ‘‘As

so often happens, deep political and ethical disagreements make the definition of the concept

[of sustainable development] a contested area’’ (Sachs 1999). Yet, the term sustainability has

already been added to a wide body of exploration and grants that has given it a very high profile.

Sustainable development assumes existence of the human species is important. This is a macro

(or holistic, global) concept that endorses long term approach or perspective, assuming a

realistic quality of living for all people irrespective of race, gender, class, ethnicity, religion,

and so forth.

The Sixth Platform: Jafari’s platforms were in a sequential description of the course of

tourism research and development to signify a study of the way in which scholarship and

research had been loomed. The fifth platform follows from an historical analysis of tourism

grant and as do the other four, describes the state of the discipline. However, the sixth platform

is prescriptive, not descriptive. Tourism, if it is to contribute seriously to any level, needs to

understand its ethical positions. (Macbeth 2005)

The seventh platform: This decade introduces tourism as a Inclusiveness for holistic

economic growth and development

INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE

ECONOMIC GROWTH

SOCIAL INCLUSIVENESS,

EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY

REDUCTION

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE

CULTURAL VALUES, DIVERSITY AND

HERITAGE

MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING,

PEACE AND SECURITY



6

Economic growth is connected to tourism sector which has 10% of worlds GDP and 30% of

world exports are contributed by this sector. This is one sector which has the largest

employability and one in every 11 jobs are in tourism all over the world. The economies that

have large population will benefit if tourism sector grows.

Tourism attracts people all over the world it is the vehicle which raises finance for conservation

and protection of historical sites, sanctuaries, wildlife, and restores biodiversity.

Tourism revives the dying art and craft, traditional activities and customs, Empowers

communities and nurtures pride within them. Tourism brings people together by making the

world a global village and is a soft tool of diplomacy.

Hence, there are seven platforms for understanding tourism research, study, policy and

planning: advocacy, cautionary, adaptancy, knowledge-based, sustainability and ethics,

holistic-development platforms. The key point in this model is to ‘‘create’’ a platform that

forces an rendezvous with these fundamental ethical issues. Hopefully, academicians,

government, and experts will each be helped by these platforms, to think about and understand

the nature and implications of their attitudes towards development. Holistic tourism is a minor

introduction to some of the work being done to understand symbiotic model of tourism.

The purport of seven tourism platforms is that a smaller scale locally controlled developmental

model is increasingly idealized as being the most beneficial to the host communities. The main

idea is to promote locally approachable types of development so that it ultimately gives

importance to the conservation of the physical and cultural environment.

But the main limitation of the community driven paradigm is the local’s capability to energize

growth. The search of economic prosperity should not be the only goal to determine in which

way tourism is planned, developed and managed. It is also important to recognize the adverse

effects brought by tourism on environmental economic and social issues, realizing the trade-

offs are unavoidable in the tourism and planning process. (Mathieson and Wall 1982)

Pearce (1990), for example, notes that a community-based approach only addresses local

concerns without giving much emphasis on how communities can effectively market their

products to the wider world and the ways to manage their resources to achieve the maximum

benefits from tourism development.



7

Tourism as an alternative strategy has proven to be effective in improving the remote and

underprivileged regions where their economic base is agriculture. It occurs where

underdeveloped and backward areas have been manipulated locally as tourism attractions.

Archer (1996) stands for continued tourism growth and development in the underprivileged

regions to reduce poverty and enhance the way of life of the resident population.

The immediate challenge, according to Hall (1996), is the degree to which the host

communities demand control over development and voluntarily assume entrepreneurial roles

in the tourism industry. This demands substantial new directions in confirming tourism impact

studies. This is precisely the rationale that Wall (1997) uses to define sustainable development

in the context of tourism as environmentally sensitive and culturally appropriate types of

development, while noting that economic viability is essential to maintain a healthy and a sound

tourism system.

The Global Travel Association Coalition intends to speak with ‘One Voice’ on key issues

shaping the progress of the sector, while encouraging a better understanding of Travel &

Tourism’s role as a driver of economic progress, employment and sustainable development.

Archer. (1996). Sustainable Tourism: an Economist’s Viewpoint. In Briguligo, L. Archer,

Jafari, J. and Wall G. (eds.) Sustainable tourism in islands and small states Issues and policies.

New York, Pinter.

Bhatia, A.K. (2007). Tourism Development: Principles and Practices. New Delhi: Sterling

Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Butler, R.W. (1975). Tourism as an agent of social change .In Proceedings of the International

Geographical Union’s Working Group on the Geography of Tourism and Recreation. (85–90).

Peterborough, Ontario: Trent University.

Clarke, J. (1997). A Framework of Approaches to Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, Vol.5, (3) (224-233).

Cooper, C. Fletcher, J. Gilbert, D and Wan Hill S. (1993) Tourism: Principles and practice.

Essex, Longman.

Din, K.H. (1997). Tourism Development: Still in Search of a More Equitable Mode of Local

Involvement. In Cooper, C. and Wan hill, S.(eds),Tourism Development: Environmental and

Community Issues,pp153-162.West Sussex,John Wiley and Sons.



8

Dogan, H. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Socio-cultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research 16 (2), 216–36.

Duffy, R. (2002). A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation. London:

Earth scan Publications.

Getz, D. (1986). Models of tourism planning: Towards integration of Theory and practice.

Tourism management, March,21-32.

Goodwin. H. (2005).Seasonality: a Responsible Tourism Approach .International care for

responsible tourism.

Gunn, C.A. (1994). Tourism Planning: Basics Concepts, Cases (3rd edition).Washington,

Taylor and Francis.

Guthunzz, U. and Krosigk, F. (1996). Tourism development in Small Island states from Mirab

toTourab. In Briguligo, L, Archer, B. Jafari, J. and Wall g. (eds.) Sustainable tourism in islands

and small states Issues and policies. New York Pinter.

Jacobs. M. (1999). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dodson (eds )

Fairness and Futurity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.21-45.

Jafari, J. (1973). ‘Role of Tourism in Socio Economic Transformation of Developing

Countries.

Jafari, J. (1977). Editor’s Page. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(sp. issue), pp 6-11.

Kaufman, M. (1997). Community Power, Grassroots Democracy, and the Transformation of

Social Life. In Community Power and Grassroots Democracy: The transformation of social

life, M. Kaufman and H. D. Alfonso eds. Zed Books, pp. 1-29.

Lieper, N. (1979). The Framework of Tourism: Towards a Definition of Tourism, Tourist and

The Tourist Industry. Annals of Tourism Research 6(4), 390-407.

Macbeth, J. (2005). Towards an Ethics Platform for Tourism .Annals of Tourism Research 32

(4), 962-984.

Madrigal, R.(1993). A tale of Tourism in two cities. Annals of tourism research 20(2), 336-

353.

Mansfield. and Ginosar. O (1994). Determinants of local perceptions and attitudes towards

Tourism development in their locality, Geoforum.25, ( 2) 227-48.

Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts .Essex,

Longman Scientific and Technical.



9

McIntosh, R.W. Goeldner, C.R, andRitchieJ.R.B. (1995).Tourism: Principles, Practices,

philosophies.New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Mill, R.C. and Morrison, A.M. (1992). The Tourism System: An introductory Text (2nd

Edition), Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

Nickerson, N. P. (1996). Foundations of Tourism, Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pearce, D.G. (1990), Tourism in Ireland: Questions of Scale and Organization. Tourism

Management, June, pp133-151.

Pruthi R.K. (2006). Rural Tourism Challenges and Paradox. New Delhi Rajat publications.

Sachs, I. (1999). “Social Sustainability and Whole Development: Exploring the Dimensions of

Sustainable Development”. In: Becker, E. and Jahn, T. (eds.). Sustainability and the Social

Sciences, London. Zed Books.

Scheyvens, R, R. (2002). Tourism for Development : Empowering communities. Prentice Hall.

Smith, S.L.J. (1988). Defining Tourism: A supply side View. Annals of tourism Research 15

(2), pp.179-190.

Stevens, T.(2002). Sustainable tourism in National Parks and protected areas .An overview,

Scottish natural Heritage.

Stynes, D.J. (1997).Estimating the economic impacts of recreation and tourism. Paper

presented at International Symposium on Human Dimensions in Natural Resource

Management, Belize City.

Theobald, W. (1994). The context Meaning and Scope of Tourism. In Theobald, W. (ed)

Global Tourism: The Next Decade, pp1-19.Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann

Wall, G. (1997). Rethinking impacts of Tourism. In Cooper, C. and Wanhill, S. (eds) Tourism

Development: environmental and Community issues. West Sussex,John Wiley and Sons.pp1-

9.

Wall G. (1997). Is Ecotourism Sustainable? Environmental Management, vol. 21, n° 4, p. 483

- 491.

Weaver D.B. (1999).Magnitude of Eco Tourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism

research 26(4) 792-816.



platforms: a shift in the approach of tourism from 1950s...

Documents