- Email: [email protected]
Tourism impact in Santa Marta, Colombia: A reply to Dann
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
Tourism Impact in Santa Marta, Colombia: A Reply to Dann Fran~ois J. BClisle
International Development Research Centre. Canada
Don R. Hoy
University of Georgia, USA We would like to thank Graham Dann for his constructive comments on our article (Annals 783-101). which he referred to as “pioneer work” and ‘*important for its methodology.” We would also like to address the questions that he has raised, using for convenience his headings of sampling procedure, type of tourism, and nature of perceived impact. Sampling
Procedure
The reason the sample was stratified with reference to Santa Marta beach instead of Rodadero Bay, despite greater and higher-class accommodation in the latter, is that we were investigating the residents’ perceptions of tourism impact and there were very few residents in Rodadero. AS we explained. “Rodadero is exclusively a resort area, and employees serving the tourists live either in Santa Marta or Gaira, a nearby village” Ip. 871. We agree that, ideally, sampling should have been done throughout the “it is possible that seasonal variations year. As stated in the conclusions, could be found in resident responses corresponding to high and low tourist seasons” fp. 951. Unfortunately, financial and time constraints did not make sampling throughout the year possible. Mention of the above two issues, therefore, was not omitted in the article. It may have been given less space than Dann would have liked, hence his useful recommendation that researchers include more details of their sampling procedures. Qpe
of Tourism
Dann is correct when he states that Santa Marta today is not playing host to an international jet set and that the early aspirations of the Colombian authorities to develop the area into an international tourist resort differ markedly from the present reality-views he supports with insightful field observations. We did not suggest that the Santa Marta area was an international jet-set center; we only noted that “it was during the 1960s that foreign tourists began to frequent the Santa Marta area in significant numbers” (p. 85) and that “to Rodadero come the wealthiest tourists, both national and international, including a growing number from the United States and Venezuela” Ip. 86). It may be, as Dann noted. that recent economic and political conditions have reduced the flow of foreign tourists, particularly from Venezuela, while encouraging more Colombians to travel within Colombia. thus reducing the ratio of foreign to domestic tourists. 1984 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH
297
REJOINDERS AND COMMENTARY Dann suggests that, in view of the Santa Marta area’s mostly domestic tourist clientele, the perceived impact of tourism that we reported is “arguably more limited than originally envisaged.” Our intention, however, was not to focus exclusivelyoreven predominantlyon international tourism. As we explained, “Variations in response could also be found if the questionnaire focused on international or national tourism; this approach was not adopted here because Venezuelans, although classified as international tourists, are culturallyverysimilar to Colombians, and confusion would have been introduced” (pp. 95-961. If we had meant to focus on international tourism, a Colombian resort would have been inappropriate because domestic tourism is predominant in all of them-including Cartagena where the proportion of foreign tourists is probably greater than it is in the Santa Marta area. A small Caribbean island, in that case, would have provided a better location for the study. We agree, however, that the perceived impact of tourism that we have reported applies to a developing-country resort where domestic tourism is predominant. and should be seen as such. It provides a different but valuable perspective from similar studies that have been conducted in resorts where international tourism predominates. Nature of Perceived Impact We did not address the exhaustiveness of the impact items in the questionnaire and the criteria for their selection because, as Dann himself noted, these matters could constitute the subject of a separate paper. The items were selected to represent as broad a range of potential impacts as possible without rendering the questionnaire unduly lengthy. The questionnaire was pretested on a small sample of respondents and, as a result, some items were added, deleted or modified. As Dann noted, it is not certain whether tourism has an effect on a given phenomenon simply because the residents of an area believe this to be so. This problem is common to all perception studies. As we explained, however. “respondents were asked to identify and explain positive and negative tourism impacts” (p. 871, ruling out unsubstantiated answers. Resident surveys may reveal discrepancies between “perceived” and “actual’ impacts, and they are useful in attempts to minimize friction between tourists and residentsip. 851. Finally, Dann concluded that our suggestion that Santa Marta residents appear to be in the first stage of Doxey’s irritation index “may not be so easily substantiated today.” However, he may not scientifically conclude this simply because he found that “apathy, instead of euphoria, characterized local official attitudes, and these may well have rubbed off on to the remainder of the population.” Our study was a rigorous analysis of the perception of tourism impact by the average residents-not the local officials-and any claim that such perceptions have changed should be based on a similar and equally rigorous follow-up study. 0 0 Submitted 9 November 1983 Accepted 18 November 1983
298
1984 ANNALS OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
AND COMMENTARY
Tourism Impact in Santa Marta, Colombia: A Reply to Dann Fran~ois J. BClisle
International Development Research Centre. Canada
Don R. Hoy
University of Georgia, USA We would like to thank Graham Dann for his constructive comments on our article (Annals 783-101). which he referred to as “pioneer work” and ‘*important for its methodology.” We would also like to address the questions that he has raised, using for convenience his headings of sampling procedure, type of tourism, and nature of perceived impact. Sampling
Procedure
The reason the sample was stratified with reference to Santa Marta beach instead of Rodadero Bay, despite greater and higher-class accommodation in the latter, is that we were investigating the residents’ perceptions of tourism impact and there were very few residents in Rodadero. AS we explained. “Rodadero is exclusively a resort area, and employees serving the tourists live either in Santa Marta or Gaira, a nearby village” Ip. 871. We agree that, ideally, sampling should have been done throughout the “it is possible that seasonal variations year. As stated in the conclusions, could be found in resident responses corresponding to high and low tourist seasons” fp. 951. Unfortunately, financial and time constraints did not make sampling throughout the year possible. Mention of the above two issues, therefore, was not omitted in the article. It may have been given less space than Dann would have liked, hence his useful recommendation that researchers include more details of their sampling procedures. Qpe
of Tourism
Dann is correct when he states that Santa Marta today is not playing host to an international jet set and that the early aspirations of the Colombian authorities to develop the area into an international tourist resort differ markedly from the present reality-views he supports with insightful field observations. We did not suggest that the Santa Marta area was an international jet-set center; we only noted that “it was during the 1960s that foreign tourists began to frequent the Santa Marta area in significant numbers” (p. 85) and that “to Rodadero come the wealthiest tourists, both national and international, including a growing number from the United States and Venezuela” Ip. 86). It may be, as Dann noted. that recent economic and political conditions have reduced the flow of foreign tourists, particularly from Venezuela, while encouraging more Colombians to travel within Colombia. thus reducing the ratio of foreign to domestic tourists. 1984 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH
297
REJOINDERS AND COMMENTARY Dann suggests that, in view of the Santa Marta area’s mostly domestic tourist clientele, the perceived impact of tourism that we reported is “arguably more limited than originally envisaged.” Our intention, however, was not to focus exclusivelyoreven predominantlyon international tourism. As we explained, “Variations in response could also be found if the questionnaire focused on international or national tourism; this approach was not adopted here because Venezuelans, although classified as international tourists, are culturallyverysimilar to Colombians, and confusion would have been introduced” (pp. 95-961. If we had meant to focus on international tourism, a Colombian resort would have been inappropriate because domestic tourism is predominant in all of them-including Cartagena where the proportion of foreign tourists is probably greater than it is in the Santa Marta area. A small Caribbean island, in that case, would have provided a better location for the study. We agree, however, that the perceived impact of tourism that we have reported applies to a developing-country resort where domestic tourism is predominant. and should be seen as such. It provides a different but valuable perspective from similar studies that have been conducted in resorts where international tourism predominates. Nature of Perceived Impact We did not address the exhaustiveness of the impact items in the questionnaire and the criteria for their selection because, as Dann himself noted, these matters could constitute the subject of a separate paper. The items were selected to represent as broad a range of potential impacts as possible without rendering the questionnaire unduly lengthy. The questionnaire was pretested on a small sample of respondents and, as a result, some items were added, deleted or modified. As Dann noted, it is not certain whether tourism has an effect on a given phenomenon simply because the residents of an area believe this to be so. This problem is common to all perception studies. As we explained, however. “respondents were asked to identify and explain positive and negative tourism impacts” (p. 871, ruling out unsubstantiated answers. Resident surveys may reveal discrepancies between “perceived” and “actual’ impacts, and they are useful in attempts to minimize friction between tourists and residentsip. 851. Finally, Dann concluded that our suggestion that Santa Marta residents appear to be in the first stage of Doxey’s irritation index “may not be so easily substantiated today.” However, he may not scientifically conclude this simply because he found that “apathy, instead of euphoria, characterized local official attitudes, and these may well have rubbed off on to the remainder of the population.” Our study was a rigorous analysis of the perception of tourism impact by the average residents-not the local officials-and any claim that such perceptions have changed should be based on a similar and equally rigorous follow-up study. 0 0 Submitted 9 November 1983 Accepted 18 November 1983
298
1984 ANNALS OF TOURISM
RESEARCH