The e-mail started with this sentence:
The workshop . . . .
attended was "Using Wildlife for Tourism: Opportunities, Threats,
Responsibilities." (run by Wildlife Tourism Australian Inc.)
It raised the questions: What matters would have been
discussed at this workshop? How can wildlife be ‘used’ for tourism? Should it
be? Indeed - what is a tourist? Who is a tourist? What has to be done to create
‘opportunities’ for these creatures that would normally not be considered
sensible or relevant, as folk say, in ordinary ‘everyday living’? What is
unique about tourism and its’ demands?
The first thought is that zoos cater for tourists with their
‘wild’ animals. Is this what wildlife tourism means? Somehow there is a
different sense here involving something more wild; more ‘free’ - more
challenging. What does a tourist expect? What does a tourist do that requires
such special attention? It seems that ‘attractions’ are required; something
that stands out from the usual. So a tourist seeks the unusual; things that are
different? Maybe.
The dictionary (dictionary.com)
says that a tourist is:
tour·ist
[toor-ist]
noun
1.
a person who is traveling, especially
for pleasure.
2.
tourist class.
adverb
3.
in tourist-class accommodations, or by tourist-class
conveyance: to travel tourist.
Origin:
1770–80; tour + -ist
1770–80; tour + -ist
Related forms
non·tour·ist, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.
Link To tourist
Example Sentences
- During that month the city, except for its main tourist arteries, is a radically different place from its usual self.
- Hotels, restaurants, shops and tourist guides are complaining of a huge drop in income.
- It was an old tourist attraction, with steps and handrails and electric lights.
Related Words for : tourist
holidaymaker, tourer
World English Dictionary
tourist (ˈtʊərɪst)
|
|
— n
|
|
1.
|
a. a person who travels for pleasure, usually sightseeing
and staying in hotels
|
b. ( as modifier ):
tourist attractions
|
|
2.
|
a person on an excursion or sightseeing tour
|
3.
|
a person travelling abroad as a member of a sports team that is
playing a series of usually international matches
|
4.
|
Also called: tourist class
the lowest class of accommodation on a passenger ship
|
— adj
|
|
5.
|
of or relating to tourist accommodation
|
tour'istic
|
|
— adj
|
|
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th
Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Etymonline
Word Origin & History
tourist
first attested 1780, from
tour (n.); tourist trap attested from 1939, in Graham Greene.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
As the word was only first attested in 1789, Captain Cook
could not have been ‘a tourist,’ but maybe his reports about Australia
initiated the desire for tourism?
The one characteristic identified in the definitions as
relating specifically to tourists is ‘pleasure.’ To summarize, the definition
simply says that a tourist is one travelling for pleasure, maybe abroad,
sightseeing or on an excursion, and usually staying in hotels. So one can identify
the important differences with a tourist as being the seeking of pleasure by
looking at or participating in something during specially organised trips away
from home, while staying in hotels. In the context of the first sentence of the
e-mail that spoke of the workshop ‘Using Wildlife for Tourism: Opportunities,’
one has to interpret the possibilities for this ‘use’ as being the organisation
of special trips so that travellers can enjoy the spectacle of things wild when
moving from their hotel accommodation on excursions. It could even be that the
hotel is close to the wildlife, so that there may be no need for any excursion
- that the hotel stay is the excursion. Yet this organisational aspect is the
‘structural’ aspect of the definition. The core is pleasure.
For a tourist to want to go and see, there has to be an
attraction that intrigues and cajoles, draws a tourist in with the promise of a
special pleasure that distracts from things ‘everyday.’ This seems to be the
primary matter, as excursions and hotels are mere supporting issues that allow
for - facilitate - the ‘sightseeing’ that gives the pleasure being sought.
Unless a tourist has some unique masochistic interest, one could classify a
tourist more simply and directly - perhaps more honestly - as ‘a pleasure
seeker.’ So it is that tourists travel to bungie jump, climb mountains or laze
on a beach - to each his/her own delight.
So what about these wild animals? The proposition seems to
be: how can wild animals be presented to / made accessible to groups of
tourists on excursions to maximise the tourists’ pleasure? It was Barry Lopez, (Arctic Dreams, Of Wolves and Men, Crossing Open Ground),
in one of his wonderful essays on nature, who spoke of how, when, after diving
in the Caribbean, he returned to his hotel to be asked excitedly by other
drivers on the excursion: “Wow! Did you see the octopus?” Lopez, far more
sensitive to his natural surroundings than any ordinary tourist, noted that it
would have been much better to ask: “Where had this octopus come from? Where
was it going? What was it doing there?” What he was emphasizing was that nature
is not merely something to gawk at for our selfish pleasure. It is not there
just for our entertainment. It is there along with us, in this world, sharing
it. We have no better rights to claim any more than this, no matter what is
said in Genesis about domination.
Our response as pleasure seekers ignores the very heart of
the situation by placing all of the importance and significance on and in the
observer - the self-important tourist seeking a pleasurable indulgence,
whatever the outcome or implications of this activity might be, because it has been paid for. For Lopez the
pleasure came from sharing the same space and place as this other creature,
with each respecting the other with a reciprocal understanding, care and
reverence - a position that can be summed up as responsibility: a word that
touches on the ability to respond and the level of accountability that this
reaction holds - indeed, demands.
The worry with the tourist is that there is no necessary
responsibility in any sense other than in self-interest. Look how the crowds
push and pull to see, to insist on their 'rights' that have been purchased. The singular aim is indulgent pleasure seeking. Tourists
will do anything to get their pleasures. The great problem with tourism lies in
this irresponsibility - the lack of care for the observed thing in their sights
when ‘sightseeing.’ The aim is to maximise the pleasure achieved; to heighten
the ‘fix’ of the pleasurable outcome, the more unique the better: and once this
has been done, the excursion moves on to the next object of pleasure, because
pleasure, like most ‘highs,’ has its limits and must become a ‘low’ again. It
can sustain itself only for short periods before other matters intrude - time,
weather, crowds, money, family, bodily functions and feelings: those droll
necessities of life and being.
So, as for “Using Wildlife for Tourism: Opportunities,” and,
one could add “Using World Heritage for Tourism Opportunities,” the important
word is ‘using’ - using something for irresponsible pleasure: ‘ab-using’ it.
Tourists ‘use’ things - they consume, and spend money for the privilege of
being remote from ordinary things. The echo of the prefix ‘eco’ makes no
difference to outcomes. The ‘sight’ is still being used for a tourist’s
pleasure seeking, with no other aim than this, echo or eco. Soon other matters
creep in to further complicate issues: comfort needs to be attended to, and
convenience catered for. So the ‘attraction’ attracts facilities - food
outlets, hotels, motels, cafes, grand roads, transport, parking lots - all for
the comfort and convenience of the tourist, to add to the pleasure: to enhance
it; at the very least, not to allow any interference with the delight being
singled out. And the grander these facilities can be, the better is the
‘attraction’ - ‘world class’! - whatever that means. So we see astonishing
hotels in astonishing places that treat amazing landscape as less than a
painting, to be gawked at as the backdrop for immoderation; and wild animals
too, become merely as actors - extras - in the pleasure game. The real worry is
that they might not appear on cue, so tricks are used to ensure the ‘value’ of
the experience. Things just get messy, and more messy.
What does become clear is that tourism needs to be very
carefully managed. Often, in all of this hoohaa, the fake can be just as
attractive as the real. Indeed, sometimes it is more convenient and comfortable, and hence more
pleasurable. So why ‘bugger up’ the real? Why not make more and more fake -
snowfields in Dubai; underwater hotels in the desert; rain forests in the heart
of cities; surf in a ‘safe’ pool in a park? Keep the real and look after it
responsibly. Tourists will do nothing for it but damage and interfere unless
carefully managed. Simply put, tourism and World Heritage do not mix freely and
should not. In the same way, wildlife needs to be protected, respected. Careful
controls, management and supervision are needed, with the aim being to sustain
the essence of the place and the animal, not the delight and comfort of the
tourist, no matter how demanding this might become.
Unless we are prepared to ask the Lopez question and
understand what its’ significance is, and to act on this basis, then we have a
real problem. The Lopez proposition is that things need to be left alone - to
be respected, not treated as dramatic spectacles. Reverence is involved - it
touches on a spiritual matter, not merely the intrigue and delight of the
extraordinary, for our world is extraordinary.
And Springbrook? Springbrook National Park is part of the
World Heritage area that has been nominated because of its biodiversity. This
is the core thing to remember. Springbrook National Park is also a very small
National Park that is surrounded by development. It needs great care if its’
special World Heritage properties are not going to be erased by pleasure
seekers, because extreme care and concern is required for the maintenance of
the diversity that knows nothing of tourism, and owes it nothing. Governments
need to understand this because fragile ecosystems are so easily disturbed and
disrupted, but are so difficult to regain, to re-establish. The wonder of
Springbrook is that, even in this tiny area, new species are still being
discovered to this very day. To march in and trample this place for singular,
selfish delight and others’ profits is an arrogance that cannot be allowed to
continue willy-nilly. There are responsibilities that come with World Heritage
listings, even if we remain blind to our responsibilities for our natural world
and its meaning.
For details of Springbrook see: www.springbrookrescue.org.au
P.S.
The Sydney Morning Herald of 25th May 2013 reported on ex-Prime Minister Paul Keating's concern with the commercialisaiton of the botanic gardens. Paul Keating sees the gardens as a place for quiet enjoyment and contemplation - see:
''The botanical gardens should be our proud front garden,
instead of that, it is moving inexorably to being simply another arena,'' Mr Keating
said. ''The trust would be better leaving municipal park benches strewn through
the gardens and Domain, to allow people's quiet enjoyment and contemplation,
rather than this grotesque alienation to the private events and party hire
industry.''
The Trust and the Government apparently have other ambitions:
Last week, Environment Minister Robyn Parker said there was
a need for a permanent music bowl in the gardens, and more revenue
opportunities. Cox Architecture is drawing up a plan to create an ''unrivalled
experience'' for tourists.
It seems that not even the Environment Minister is interested in 'quiet enjoyment and contemplation,' just in creating 'an unrivalled experience for tourists.' After all, tourists do not want simple solitude or any time for reflection, just more and better distractions. The world is only too happy to provide as many of these as it can. Giving thought to ordinary, everyday life that needs quiet and restful times and places is seen simply as a waste of time and a loss of money - tourist dollars. Designing the world for tourism is changing lives by ignoring the simple necessities in favour of exhibitionism.
23rd April 2014
23rd April 2014
Jan Morris Contact!
Brief encounters in a lifetime of travel
Faber and Faber, London, 2009, p.126:
Arrival of the tourists
Down in the harbour of Capri I can see the morning vaporetto
from the mainland, still hazy about the funnel, and here flooding into the
piazza, pouring out of taxis, out of buses, out of horse carriages, out of the
steep funicular that runs up from the waterfront - wearing floppy straw hats
and rope-soled shoes and pink jeans and multifarious bangles - festooned with
cameras, inquiring the price of swimsuits, unfolding maps, touching up their
lipsticks beneath the campanile – talking German, English, French and every
variety of Italian – young and old, blatant and demure, strait laced and
outrageous, earnest and frivolous and thrilled and sick-to-death-of-it-all –
here past my café table streams the first quota of the morning’s tourists.
31 May 2014
The face of tourism
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-27624575
The subject of interest is always secondary to ME and MY experience. Wonder is belittled, turned into a background for MY performance.
31 May 2014
The face of tourism
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-27624575
The subject of interest is always secondary to ME and MY experience. Wonder is belittled, turned into a background for MY performance.
13 JULY 2015
It was a sentence in an E-mail received today, totally
unsolicited:
He told them they want the walk as Springbrook needs
something else to bring even more tourists up.
Tourists always want more and more. Even ‘World Heritage’ is
never enough; such is the desire for ever-new, quirky and different
distractions. Would we really do this to World Heritage Uluru? Would the French
have this approach to Chartres cathedral? The Indians to the Taj Mahal? – see:
and
The problem is that bush walkers are a little like things ‘eco’:
they have the appearance of being sensitive to place when the real ambition
seems to be similar to that of mountain climbers – to make the journey and tick the
box.
We need to understand the unique importance of having one of
the few regions in the world that has been listed as having ‘World Heritage’
values.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.