Mass Attack: It's tourism value that counts

When is mass not mass? As in, when is mass tourism not mass tourism? I ask the question because someone has said that the Balearics need a new strategy for tourism because a tourism industry based on mass tourism is not proving beneficial. On the basis that the Balearics receive over 10 million tourists per annum, then how many fewer tourists are needed in order that they don't constitute mass? I know the answer to the question is like guessing how long a piece of string is, but as the director for the Centre for Economic Research, Antoni Riera, has brought the subject up, then I think we should be given some guidance.

Unfortunately, and much though I respect Sr. Riera, I doubt if he has a good answer to the question. If he does, he will be unusual, as no obvious definition exists as to what mass tourism means. In the absence of a definition, it becomes impossible to identify by how much Balearics tourism would need to be reduced in order for it to stop being mass.

Even the greatest authorities don't know what mass is; an authority like the UN's World Tourism Organization for example. If it doesn't know, then how can anyone else be expected to?

One person who has had a go is Andreas Hauser, a tourism planning consultant. Herr Hauser has listed four criteria. If a destination fails to meet any of these criteria, then it is experiencing mass tourism. The four criteria are: 1) local culture remains intrinsic, i.e. is also displayed in the absence of tourism; 2) local environmental impacts can be mitigated, i.e. they cause no permanent damage; 3) local economies remain independent, i.e. they also function without tourism activity; 4) the majority of tourists show genuine interest in local surroundings, i.e. they have an intention to learn about history, culture and people.

On the basis of these criteria, Mallorca fails on every count except arguably the first. Environmental impacts as a consequence of tourism have been significant and are irreversible; without tourism, Mallorca wouldn't have an economy; the majority of tourists come because they are interested in local surroundings so long as they are a beach and a bar.

By way of comparison, and to show that sheer weight of numbers isn't necessarily a determinant of mass tourism, London receives more international tourism than any other city; the number of visitors is put at approaching 30 million a year, though certainly not all of these are tourists. But even allowing for other types of visitor, London does not fail any of the criteria. One can of course argue, for example, that without tourists the city would be hit hard, but essentially, and according to Hauser's criteria, London does not experience mass tourism.

While these criteria appear to be only qualitative, Hauser says that they can be quantified, even the fourth one: if over 50% of tourists show a disinclination to engage with local culture then a situation of mass tourism exists.

But the issue is really less to do with defining mass tourism and more to do with defining tourism in terms of its overall beneficial or adverse effects. An equation of tourism should therefore show the relationship of the criteria plus those that Hauser excludes, i.e. the economic ones. Because the term mass tourism implies a sort of pejorative or negative, it obscures the wider picture.

Arriving at a true understanding of Mallorca's tourism, taking these different criteria into consideration, would be far from easy, but to come back to Riera, what he is saying is what the CER have previously reported: that there are limits to what current levels of tourism can produce by way of returns and that there are, and have been for some time, diminishing returns even from increased levels of tourism.

The mass will not be taken out of Mallorca's tourism, so the term is partly irrelevant. The key question is what should the level be in order to maximize economic benefit while taking into account environmental and cultural factors. One can pluck numbers out of the air, but to come to some sensible level, tourists - each and every one of them - need to be evaluated in terms of their economic input, cultural investment and environmental effect. Putting things bluntly, those who score lowly or hardly at all on the first two scales should be denied entrance; this is the logical conclusion of what Riera is saying.

By highlighting the level of all-inclusive occupancy (one third), the CER hints at where a reduction in tourism numbers could be made. This, though, is unfair; not all AI guests can be branded in the same way. It is also impractical, unless Mallorca wants war with the tour operators.

Nevertheless, Riera is opening up what should be a grand and very serious debate. Whether it is something that politicians and others in Mallorca are truly capable of doing, or are allowed to engage in, is another question. 

*Andreas Hauser's article: http://www.destinationworld.info/newsletter/feature45.html


Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.