_Page 20 RAIN October 1976 Costs of TOurism .Impacts of Tourism on Prince Edward Island, Executive Summary $1.50, Analysis and Recommendations $2.50, from Queen's Printer 0 • Box 2000 0 Charlottetown, PEl, ClA 7N8, Canada PEl's Premier Alex Campbell has long been working to support the Islaond's simple yet deep-rooted and rewarding lifestyle. An advocate of aoconserver society, self-reliance, solar energy and . energy conservation, Campbell sponsored the building of New Alchemy's ARK-a research and demonstration project for integrated wind power, solar energy, food productio~ and living which was recently dedicated on the Island. Questioning the social value of an economy increasingly dependent upon tourism, he also commissioned, in 1975, an. unprecedented analysis of the social, economic apd environ- . mental impacts of tourism on the Island. The study, per-'. formed by a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm, was released this summer and unfortunately turned out to be a model of how not to answerthe right questions. It bears looking at, however, to see how such studies can obscure basic questions and because the questions of tourism and the impacts of allowing a region's economy to depend on such outside support are important. The report asserts that the ohly significant impacts of tourism are positive and that the people of a 'region really have no options but to accept tourism and ·perhaps fiddle with signboard regulations to minimize its impact. Inevitably such a report becomes a major force in people's acquiescence to a fundamental change iri their way of life that many of them intuitively and actively oppose, and the omissions of such a study neeq to be brought to light. ,· The economic impact of tourism on PEl is significant and seemingly positive. Tourists spend more than $23 .million a · year, and, subtracting the dollars that immediately go off the Island to pay for imported goods and services, they leave behind more than $20 million. This sounds great, and that's where the story is left in the report, other than examining which tourists leave the most money (therefore to be encouraged?) and which the least (friends and relatives-should· they stay home?). , . · . ·. · The story doesn't end there, however, as tourism has been depositin·g such amounts of money on the Island for a number of years and the environmental impact section of the study ' didn't mention any mountains of ca~h lying around disrupting the Island's ecology. In fact, the money does leave the Island , again-in the expenditures of the Islanders for goods and services imported from elsewhere. And there basic questionsappear, for the social and economic impacts would be very ·different if the Islanders provided goods and services for each other rather than providing tourist services for outsiders and then using that income for purchasing goods and services from outside. In spite of its $20 million per year "input," tourism, when combined with off-Island purchases, may cause a net economic loss to the Island through establishing unfavorable trade arrangements with other areas. The economic impact of tourism is more than the money income it brings-it.must include the unequal value of city money vs. country money, city prices and wages vs. country prices and wages, and energy slaves vs. people's work which occur in large-scale systems. · The odds are that PEl, like most.rural areas, doesn't come out ahead on such exchanges, which almost universally work to the benefit of the urban industrialized areas that control the . economic systems. In addition, the effects of tourism on the intern:i.l economy of the Island itself' are not explored in the study. Who gets the money? What changes are there in·the relative wealth of people on the Island? Who owns the tourist facilities? What effect · does tourism have on in-migration? How many people come to PEl for summer jobs, taking money away; or stay, splitting the pie into smaller pieces? How much does the Island hav~ to spend on tourist infrastructure-roads, sewers, power plants, motels and police-and is ,that the kind of surroundings the people of the Island want to have? . Whether we think about Prince Edward Island or America Island or Earth Island, the questions of-who benefits and w1w pays are basic. The report implies that encouragement of tourist patterns that bring the greatest expenditures are.best and should be encouraged. Yet the people of PEl take vacations, too, and for them the best vacation at least cost is as much a benefit as it is to the tourists coming to PEl. For society as a whole as well as for the people who pay, the less work, dollars, or energy necessary 't() satisfy our needs, the better. It would , seem th.at a wise society would ask for a fair return for everyone's work rather than trying to .milk each other for the high- · est possible prices. The absurdity of that approach is apparent in the. s~rategies proposed for PEl to encouni.g'e "paying" visitors at the expense of friends and relatives which are ·of more than economic benefit to the Islanders. The social impacts of tourism are equally neglected in the PEl study, which examines only surveys of .residents' attitudes towards tourism-a process of relatively little use unless the residents have a real feel for what options and alternatives are · available to them and what the costs and benefits of each ·might be. Believing that tourism "gives" them $20 million a year, frequently being per.sonally dependent on tourism in- <:ome and having little awareness of the indirect and delayed effects of a tourist economy upon their lives, few people can be expected to express what intuitive reservations they might have. Even well articulated attitudes towards tourism express only a small part of the social impacts of the industry. This is particularly true when tourism's significance lies as much in its being a disruptive economic wedge diverting people from a local, self-reliant social and economic pattern into one tied into urban and international operations as it does in the activities of the tourists themselves.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz