International Volunteer Tourism. Stephen Wearing

identified by Cohen (1987).

      Figure 2.1 demonstrates the general relational aspects of the different forms of tourism identified in the literature and how serious leisure and volun-teerism lie in relation to these forms of tourism. This conceptual model identifies and includes the elements of serious leisure and volunteerism. These elements are fundamental to the construction of volunteer tourism experiences and allow for, as this diagram shows, the elaboration of the overlaps and divergences of tourism forms or markets through viewing the specific elements that comprise them, and their relation to the experiential reality of those participating.

      Fig. 2.1. A conceptual schema of alternative tourism. (Adapted from Mieczkowski, 1995: 459.)

      As to the specific forms of alternative tourism, Mieczkowski (1995) distinguishes such forms as cultural, educational, scientific, adventure and agritour-ism with rural, ranch and farm subsets. Significantly, there is some overlap with CMT (e.g. cultural tourism in Smith & Eadington, 1992) but the main criterion of distinction is the scale and character of the impacts. Another overlap occurs between the various types of alternative tourism themselves. Cultural tourism, for example, is largely educational. Ecotourism, also called nature or green tourism, is nature oriented and nature based but is not always necessarily practised in wilderness settings. Mieczkowski (1995) finds it difficult to place eco-tourism in the context of alternative tourism because, while not coinciding directly with cultural tourism, it overlaps with the educational, scientific, adventure, pro-poor and agritourism forms.

      The distinct characteristics of ‘alternative tourism’ are schematically outlined in Box 2.1, and, although not considered exhaustive, are included here to provide the underpinning of the conceptual framework that underlies the basis of the movement towards elaborating the specificity of a particular touristic experience.

Box 2.1. Features of alternative tourism.

      • The attempted preservation, protection and enhancement of the quality of the resource base, which is fundamental to tourism itself (Wearing, 2004).

      • The fostering and active promotion of development in ways that complement local attributes in relation to additional visitor attractions and infrastructure, and with roots in the specific locale (Wearing, 2004).

      • The endorsement of infrastructure, hence economic growth, when and where it improves local conditions and not where it is destructive or exceeds the carrying capacity of the natural environment or the limits of the social environment whereby the quality of community life is adversely affected (Cox, 1985: 6–7).

      • Tourism that attempts to minimize its impact upon the environment, is ecologically sound and avoids the negative impacts of many large-scale tourism developments undertaken in areas that have not previously been developed (Saglio, 1979; Travis, 1982; Kozlowski, 1985; Bilsen, 1987; Gonsalves, 1984; Holden, 2008).

      • Tourism that does not exploit local populations and where the benefits flow to local residents (Yum, 1984; Ashley et al., 2000; Schilcher, 2007).

      • An emphasis on, not only ecological sustainability, but also cultural sustainability. That is, tourism that does not damage the culture of the host community, encouraging a respect for the cultural realities experienced by the tourists through education and organized ‘encounters’ (e.g. Holden, 1984).

      Alternative tourism then, generally, is a modality of tourism that pays special attention to environmental and social carrying capacity.⁴ Krippendorf (1987: 37) notes that the guiding principle of alternative tourists is to put as much distance between themselves and mass tourism in trying to establish more contact with the local population, without a reliance on tourist infrastructure, in utilizing the same accommodation and transport facilities as the local population.

      This is directly related to sustainability — and sustainable development by implication — which is, despite its ambiguity, fundamental to the positioning of any touristic experience as alternative. Sustainability requires the establishment of baseline data from which change and rates of change can be measured (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Eber, 1992). The polemic Bruntland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) brought the concept of sustainable development into the international arena, somewhat contentiously defining it as: ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Mieczkowski, 1995: 457). In the present context, environmentally sustainable tourism has come to be fundamentally identified with alternative tourism (Chapter 1). Similarly, Butler (1991) defines it as: a ‘form of tourism that supports the ecological balance’ …, suggesting ‘a working definition of sustainable development in the context of tourism as: tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, environment) in such a manner and at such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period and does not degrade or alter the environment’.

      Thus, in its most general sense, and for conceptual clarity in what follows, alternative tourism can be broadly defined as forms of tourism that set out to be consistent with natural, social and community values and which allow both hosts and guests to enjoy positive and worthwhile interaction and shared experiences.

       Commodification and the Tourism Industry

      The system of production within the tourism industry is now considered one of the world’s most powerful driving forces.

      Stear et al. (1988: 1) provide this definition of the tourism industry: ‘[a] collection of all collaborating firms and organizations which perform specific activities directed at satisfying leisure, pleasure and recreational needs. It includes only those firms that are purposefully performing specific production and marketing activities which are directed at the particular needs of tourists. To be a firm within the tourism industry the firm must have a vested interest in tourism [and] do things to cause tourism in terms of both its volume and its qualitative aspects.’

      Through mergers and concentrations, companies considered a part of the tourism industry have become agents of an interconnected network penetrating many sectors. The transnationals of tourism utilize strategies of capital internationalization in a system of tourist production that has evolved into network companies who operate globally (Coles & Hall, 2008). Decisions for whole regions or countries are made inside one company. This system aids the integration of regions and communities into the international whole as the host culture, society and identity become mass products when this form of tourism enters a country. These forms of international tourism are a powerful force in the universalization of culture and society. To accept it means not only the welcoming of foreign vacationers and their currency, but also means access to international planning, technology and finance, entering the world economy and approaching world modernity. One cannot understand volunteer tourism without this view of reality.

      Marketing articulates supply and demand within a market economy, and societies embracing international tourism are plunged into this international system. Unlike other industries, the ‘products’ of the tourist industry are a pastiche of formerly homogeneous elements amalgamated by advertising for tourist consumption. Combined symbiotically they include services (lodging, dining, transportation, recreation), culture (folklore, festivals and heritage) and less palpable things such as hospitality, ambience and ethnicity. International tourism promotion, aimed at economic development, requires every location to offer something unique. By this logic, each country or region must produce and publicize its unique identity, with each ‘new recognition’ signifying superiority. Widespread marketing research determines what this image should be, matching aspects of local identity with the desires of its potential