don't get me wrong. i am not attempting to compartmentalize the world into work, leisure and tourism - and if it seems that i am, it is only to establish a talking point from which to explore and contrast certain standing opinions within that academic field. and the majority view where i live now is that

1) leisure and tourism are synonymous, or leisure is a minor footnote to the tourism discourse, and;
2) tourism is a universal panacea to peripheral and/or failing primary and secondary economies.

the possibility that tourism poses any threat whatsoever is a total non-issue since the ramifications would be almost unthinkable.

consider the ICOMOS international cultural tourism charter and the UNESCO world heritage list. these organizations are interested in protecting important heritage sites and the cultures in which they are situated by registering them. in fact, they are as interested in protecting these from the damaging weight of tourism as much as they are against war, earthquake and other disasters. read, tourism is a 'slow disaster'. however, certain destinations applaud the winning of UNESCO recognition as a shot in the arm for local tourism and milk it for all it is worth as an addition to the destination image, branding and promotional portfolio.

the ideal of community action and involvement and the responsibility of government to establish good policy for the protection and well being of the community is overlooked. local residents are left out in the cold to fend for themselves and when tourism is involved, are expected to eat the scraps left under the table by visiting tourists. and are told to be glad about it. and if the community is lucky enough to have anything at all going well for them, whether it be a pristine beach, a mountain, an old relic or a cultural tradition then it is free game for the 'tourism industry', an elite few, to direct its tour busses.

in an age of chronic economic and environmental problems, it still seems amazing to me that governments should act by initiating even bigger projects to counteract 'damage'. that government should be bailing out wall street and that it would bail out the planet if it could find a way is utterly unbelievable to me. especially with all the 'medical' metaphors hovering around the problem (a patient with clogged arteries, etc.).

it seems like we have forgotten about the old waste hierarchy -- reduce, reuse, recycle. and in the current situation it would be wise for all of us to start by reducing our needs and wants.