Linking Culture and the Environment

K.L. Andereck and N.G. McGehee 241
residents relocating from out of state, which results in significant changes in
the social character of the community (Perdue et al., 1991). Loss of community
identity and local culture often occurs when a high growth rate with
poor planning and growth management are combined (Rosenow and
Pulsifer, 1979). Tourism development directly affects residents’ habits, daily
routines, social lives, beliefs and values that may lead to psychological tension.
Other negative sociocultural consequences of tourism include a decline
in traditions, materialism, increase in crime rates and social conflicts (Dogan,
1989). The residents of some destinations do not feel tourism affects the crime
rate, and they do not attribute social costs to tourism (Liu and Var, 1986).
However, in other areas residents perceive an increase in negative sociocultural
consequences such as brawls, drug addiction, vandalism and individual
crimes. The same residents identify improvements in attitudes towards work
and hospitality towards strangers as positive social effects of tourism
(Haralambopoulos and Pizam, 1996). Other positive effects are cultural benefits
including improved entertainment, historical and cultural exhibits, a
means for cultural exchange, cultural events and a strengthening of cultural
identity (Liu and Var, 1986). In the case of the Arizona study, residents tend
to not perceive any of the potential negative sociocultural consequences of
tourism that were measured while agreeing that it can provide many benefits
(Table 14.1). For the most part Arizona residents did not report that tourism
causes problems, but there is also some uncertainty with respect to its
effects on crime, vandalism and friction between residents and visitors.
Although tourism is often considered a clean industry that does not
harm the natural environment, in reality, it can cause significant environmental
damage because it is often developed in areas that have attractive but
fragile environments. The principal negative environmental consequences of
tourism are: air pollution such as emissions from vehicles and airplanes;
water pollution such as waste water discharge, fertilizer leakage and road
oil; wildlife destruction as a result of hunting, trapping and fishing and disruption
of natural habitat; plant destruction, deforestation, over-collection of
specimens, forest fires and trampling of vegetation; and destruction of wetlands,
soil and beaches. In addition, there are other environmental consequences
of tourism that concern residents. These include: large buildings
which destroy views; clashing architectural styles which do not fit the style
of the area; noise pollution from planes, cars and tourists; damage to geological
formations due to erosion and vandalism; fishing line and tackle left by
anglers; and graffiti (Andereck, 1995b).
While the impacts of tourism on the environment are evident to scientists,
not all residents attribute environmental damage to tourism. Residents’
reactions to environmental impacts are mixed. Some feel tourism provides
more parks and recreation areas, improves the quality of the roads and public
facilities and does not contribute to ecological decline. Many do not blame
tourism for traffic problems, overcrowded outdoor recreation or the disruption
of peace and tranquillity of parks (Liu and Var, 1986). Alternatively, some
residents express concern that tourists overcrowd the local fishing, hunting
and other recreation areas or may cause traffic and pedestrian congestion