By Alpha
Tourism generates 8% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, according to the latest major study on the subject, published in 2018 in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change. In addition to aviation, another aspect of travel which is often singled out for having devastating effects on the environment is mass tourism. To better understand the issues at stake, we decided to look at the origins of the phenomenon on the occasion of COP27, alongside Saskia Cousin, who specializes in the sociology of tourism. The anthropologist shared with us her thoughts on how we will be traveling in the future. Part of our series "Time for Change" on the occasion of COP27.
Tourism generates 8% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, according to the latest major study on the subject, published in 2018 in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change. In addition to aviation, another aspect of travel which is often singled out for having devastating effects on the environment is mass tourism. To better understand the issues at stake, we decided to look at the origins of the phenomenon on the occasion of COP27, alongside Saskia Cousin, who specializes in the sociology of tourism. The anthropologist shared with us her thoughts on how we will be traveling in the future. Part of our series "Time for Change" on the occasion of COP27.
First of all let's establish what is meant by the term "mass tourism."
Saskia Cousin: This expression refers to several things, and that often results in confusion. Mass tourism is a denunciation or mockery of the vacationing practices of the working classes. But it also refers to the visible phenomenon of a concentration of vacationers or tourists in a certain space (cities, natural sites) that is not able to accommodate them. Finally, it's also important to mention the industrialization of tourism: like any sector of mass consumption, there is a concentration of capital and firms, in addition to a standardization of products and destinations.
When did this expression first appear and what was the context?
The sociologist Jean-Didier Urbain explains it in his publications: the tourist gets mocked since the invention of organized travel. In the 19th century, Chateaubriand mocked the "Cookers" who picnicked under the Parthenon. However, that was far off from a concentration of capital and vacationers. The expression "mass tourism" appeared in the 1960s with growing wide-spread accessibility to vacations, as well as to places previously reserved for the elite, in parallel with a mass industrialization of organized vacation offers.
But mass tourism is often associated with the introduction of paid vacations in 1936 (in France)...
This is an error -- on the historical, economic, social and political levels. The massification of summer vacations took place in the 1960s. Organized travel, resorts and all the other standardized products of the tourism sector were in fact the affair of upper social categories, before becoming consumed by middle classes in the West.
Which destinations were the first to fall victim to mass tourism?
The driving force behind tourism is mimicry: we desire places, atmospheres and practices because imagery of it circulates. Whether it's guidebooks or Instagram, the production of images is always at the root. The destinations identified as victims were "invented" by the elite, then set in motion by hoteliers, guidebook editors, public funding. In France, the first destination subject to mockery concerned the resorts set up in the (Mediterranean] Languedoc area in the 1960s. However, 50 years later, it seems that these major projects and the concentration of vacationers in the resorts have allowed for better preservation of the environment than on the Côte d'Azur, which opted for the privatization of its coastline.
From Dubrovnik to Venice and Palma de Mallorca, the term "mass tourism" is used to refer to the density of travelers concentrated in the areas during the peak summer holiday period. But Paris, New York and London also get crowded with tourists. These cities even top the rankings of the most visited destinations, but we never consider them as part of the mass tourism phenomenon. Does it come down to the relationship between the size of the area and the number of travelers?
It's not a question of the number of vacationers. It is a question of concentration in a certain space but also in time. We're talking about people who are easily identifiable as "tourists." In Paris, the issue isn't about being able to stroll through the tourist districts but the hold that short stay rentals now has on the real estate market and the city's transformation into an Instagrammable setting.
Generally, the term 'mass tourism' is used to refer to destinations that have a mainstream reputation. Is this a real connection?
Very mainstream vacation sites, and in particular seaside resorts, are always more associated with the expression "mass tourism" than cultural tourism sites that are equally frequented by the masses, in Versailles, for example.
Also, these are very often destinations that tourists travel to by plane...
Yes, because the only relevance of the expression "mass tourism" is that which reflects the phenomenon of the industrialization of tourism, which implies a concentration of flows, standardization of products and competition through costs. An airport produces an orientation and a concentration of flows. This aspect is reinforced by the activity of low-cost airlines, as well as by the capitalist dynamic of the platforms, which encourages the consumption of as many short trips as possible.
Is mass tourism necessarily a destructive force, considering that the GDP of many countries is based primarily on revenue generated by tourism?
All industrial activities destroy environments and lifestyles, at the same time that they generate revenue. This is absolutely not specific to tourism. The real question to ask is how to account for what economists call "the negative externalities of tourism." However, keep in mind that it is the practices of vacations in the countries of residence -- domestic tourism -- that keep territories alive, especially rural territories. International tourism benefits essentially, if not exclusively, the major brands and tourist centers.
Some destinations, such as Venice, will never be able to expand in order to accommodate the large number of curious travelers who want to visit... At the same time, it's difficult to imagine tourists' interest in the 'Floating City' drying up. Isn't it utopian to imagine being able to curtail mass tourism, as some observers suggest is possible?
There are some simple measures that can be taken such as banning cruise ships and halting the construction of chain hotels underway. The same problem exists in Barcelona and Lisbon. It's more a question of regulating an industry. These are political choices. We need public policies to regulate transport, flows and access. It's a question of political commitment.
Can rising airfares curb a destination's popularity?
The issue is not popularity, but the social, cultural, and environmental cost of overcrowding. It is strange to think only in terms of price increases. Instead we should ask questions about the scarcity of flights, not their cost to the traveler. Low-cost tickets are incentivized by the platforms that make their margin on a series of short trips on repeat. There are many ways to think about scarcity, without preventing those of modest means from having access to travel. For example, we could invent compulsory airline cards, but on an inverted model in respect to the carbon compensation programs proposed by airlines: the more you travel, the more expensive it is or the shorter your stay, the more expensive it is.
Traveling opens up the mind, it teaches us to understand others, to cultivate our empathy. However, given the current climate, some people no longer dare to say that they travel (or that they like to travel). In addition to "flight shaming," there is a genuine call to stop traveling. In the long term, could this situation redefine the way we travel?
Travel is part of human history. The vast majority of people who travel don't make use of the tourism industry. On the other hand, an all-inclusive trip to the other side of the world doesn't open up the mind: it is often chosen because of its lower cost compared to a closer destination. The industrial form of tourism and transport born 150 years ago and which has been masified in the last 50 years is in the process of exhausting all its resources in an extractivist logic. Of course, there are normative arguments against flight shaming, but they're mainly espoused by those who fly the most. The Swedes invented the idea of "flygskam," but they are among the Europeans who take the most planes... If travel and vacations are to continue, vacationers must be able to continue to avoid this industry. It will also be necessary to reinvent policies of socialization and education regarding travel, on the subject of the environment, otherness: the return of school field trips to the countryside, summer camps. Public policies are necessary if we want alternative transport and travel modes to increase. I am thinking in particular of a European policy for trains, which are often ten times more expensive than air travel.
Check out our other 'Time for Change' stories:
COP27:"Eco-anxiety as an engine of change" (Alice Desbiolles, doctor)
