Under the motto of "Future and Trends", these are a couple of topics raised and my replies to them in the context of the TOURISM INDUSTRY:
https://ucpages.uc.pt/en/events/dsott23/program/#day-3
You have been conducting research on residents’ attitudes to tourism and also the circular economy in tourism, which includes collaborative tourism. Let us focus on the enduring tourist-host divide – is there still a divide?
Let me start with the attitude of residents towards tourists, although we should be more precise and frame this reflection within the type of tourism in question (family tourism is not the same as drunkenness tourism, to give an example; many segments could be differentiated, with very different attitudes towards them).
In any case, with these nuances, yes, that division exists and it is, to a certain extent, inevitable, since their daily lives follow different patterns, which can become incompatible. Generalizing, the tourist seeks leisure and fun that when it takes place at certain times and in residential areas gives rise to conflicts by colliding with the right to rest of those who reside there, in addition to generating undesirable environmental impacts (more waste, garbage, dirt, etc.). We are seeing it every day in tourist destinations (especially urban ones) in which this difficult balance between the interests of both groups has been broken, having exceeded the "tolerance level of the local community", as Prof. Jafari defines the destination carrying capacity. It is like when you try to mix water with oil.
However, there are also benefits in the coexistence of both (the pandemic has harshly reminded us of this), since tourists bring with them not only economic income for the local community, but also the improvement of certain services (cultural, recreational, gastronomic, etc.) from which residents also benefit, and that without tourism they would not exist. In addition, part of the tourist experience is the interaction with the local population and their ways of life, so it is important to encourage this type of experience while preserving its authenticity.
The convergence of both poles should make us understand that, in reality, it is not about managing a destination, but about managing a community, with permanent residents (those who live there) and temporary residents (tourists who pass through there for a few days), and both must be served. Therefore, the well-being of both (not only one of these poles) must be placed at the center of tourism governance architecture. In the words, also by Prof. Jafari: "If tourism development does not contribute to people's quality of life, it is not good". This leads us to how we should approach today, in our democratic societies and in the new post-pandemic scenario, tourism governance, which must continue to evolve to provide a better response to the tourism-phobia problems that we are watching with increasing frequency. I’ll be back to this issue in the next question.
Concerning the application of the principles of the circular economy in tourism (symbolized in the well-known Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle, etc.), the involvement of both residents and tourists is essential, as well as a collaboration between tourism companies, and between this sector and others with which it is related.
As an example, the involvement of residents is essential for the separation of waste which makes recycling more effective and efficient. At the level of tourists, the information and awareness work of hotels and other tourist companies is important, taking into account that certain characteristics of tourist activity, such as its hedonistic component, make it difficult to advance in the reduction of certain consumptions, such as water (per capita) or food waste from buffet meals. However, the application of new technologies (such as sensors and artificial intelligence) is proving very useful to reduce this consumption, with the consequent cost savings.
This fact brings us to the point of the collaboration that should be considered, in three senses:
*Firstly, collaboration with technology-based companies that provide this type of solution is proving essential, as is the creation of an entire ecosystem of start-ups around tourist activities.
*Secondly, among the companies in the tourism sector themselves, to reach the critical mass necessary to be able to treat certain waste. This is the case of the HOSPES program of the Portuguese Hotel Association, with the donation of various types of items for later reuse, repair, or recycling.
*And thirdly, what is known as industrial symbiosis, that is the collaboration between tourism companies and related companies from other sectors. An example is the "Circular Hotels" initiative on the island of Majorca, with the cooperation between large hotel chains, agricultural companies on the island, and the concessionary company for the public waste treatment service on said island, for the comprehensive use of waste food.
Concerning the contribution to better relations between tourists and hosts, what has been the role of circular economy/collaborative tourism in achieving this?
A better environment is beneficial to everyone. In this sense, therefore, a more circular economy will benefit a more friendly coexistence between tourists and hosts; it can put companies previously disconnected in touch and, in this way, generate new business opportunities. Likely, there must be somebody (business associations, development agencies) that acts as a bridge between them, playing a mediator role to fill the gap of lack of information, trust, etc. Nevertheless, in addition to the regulations emanating from the various levels of government, a bottom-up approach is also necessary, which leads us to the critical matter of tourism governance, which should evolve.
Tourists, as clients, are “per se” at the heart of tourism companies and DMOs, but usually, hosts are like the missing link in tourism planning processes, with very little intervention, if any. To make possible a balanced development of this economic activity, with social implications that cannot be avoided (and that can be summed up in the word tourism-phobia), the participation of local communities in multipolar governance models (not only bipolar between representatives of political and business organizations) for decision-making, is vital if we want to generate tourism-philia instead.
Moving towards a more inclusive governance and, therefore, better equipped to respond to challenges such as tourism-phobia, which is (re)emerging strongly in the current post-pandemic scenario, is essential, because this movement is not really against tourism itself, but rather against certain models of tourism development. Public administrations and business organizations are not the only two groups with interests in the development of tourism so the participation of residents and other stakeholders is required for a more effective governance. In other words, the transition from the classic public-private-partnerships (or 3 Ps model) to the broader public-private-people partnerships (4 Ps model or P-P-C- model), on the basis that tourism is not carried out by political and business representatives for local people, but with them: for vs with, making distrust and detachment pale.
P.S.: This was my introductory video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQLceNjMddk
(Post nº 445 in this blog)
