Journal of Tourism & Hospitality
Open Access

Faced with the Tragedy of the Tourism Commons: Different Stages, Types and Regions is the Institutional Design Always Effective?

Rui Li^{* *}Correspondence: Rui Li, School of Management, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China, Email:

Author info »

Descripition

In the article "Adaptive change of institutions and dynamic governance of the tragedy of the tourism commons: Evidence from rural China", we take Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province, China as an example, and define the conflict of interest that broke out in the process of its participation in rural tourism development as the tragedy of the rural tourism commons, and discuss the effectiveness of institutional change in solving the tragedy of the rural tourism commons. The development of rural tourism needs villagers' cooperation to generate collective actions [1]. In view of the issues studied in this article, I think there are three related issues that need to be extended and discussed.

First of all, Butler [2] proposed the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) theory. He believed that the development process of any tourist destination generally includes six stages: Exploration, participation, development, stabilization, stagnation, and decline or revival stages. Obviously, the development of many tourist destinations conforms to this prediction and has been confirmed [3,4]. However, due to the competitive and non-exclusive nature of tourism commons, the tragedy of the tourism commons will inevitably occur in the process of tourism development. Therefore, the tragedy of the tourism commons may show different characteristics in different stages of the tourism area life cycle. For example, in the early stage of tourism destination development, tourism resources may be left idle due to problems such as chaotic management and inadequate infrastructure, leading to the tragedy of tourism anti-commons [5]. In the later stage of the development of tourism destinations, the excessive use of tourism resources may be caused by such problems as responsibility avoidance and brand consumption, leading to the tragedy of the tourism common [6]. To sum up, whether the institutional design can overcome the tragedy of the tourism commons in different stages of tourism destination, in order to achieve sustainable development is worth thinking about.

Secondly, many scholars have studied the tragedy of tourism commons, which is mainly manifested as environmental decline, overcrowding, destruction of cultural resources, depletion of wildlife [7,8]. In view of the above problems, scholars believe that tourism tax is a reasonable solution. Furthermore, tourism taxes can internalize environmental costs into production costs and market prices. Rising tourism prices may reduce tourism demand and consumption, thereby reducing the negative impact of tourism [9]. For example, some tourist attractions control the flow of tourists by raising ticket prices to ensure a good tourist experience. However, the tax approach is to reduce the negative impact of tourism through mandatory means and prevent the tragedy of the tourism commons. Some scholars have also pointed out that coordinated collective action through national or global policy mechanisms can solve the problem of tourism aviation emissions by relying on self-awareness [10]. So, can institutional design generate collective action to get people to work together to solve the tragedy of the tourism commons beyond aviation emissions.

Finally, due to the differences in politics, economy, culture and other aspects between developing countries and developed countries, there are different characteristics in the management concept and mode of tourism development, the number of tourists, transportation and other aspects [11]. Although the tragedy of the tourism commons occurs in both developing and developed countries, their institutional design and the formation and maintenance of collective action may be different. Scholars have noted that collective action can take many forms, with many political, economic, legal, religious, and media (popular and social) institutions playing an important role in building the gathering momentum for collective action [10]. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the similarities and differences in the process, leading force, maintenance mode and effectiveness of institutional design and collective action to avoid the tragedy of tourism commons in different national backgrounds.

The above problems need to be analyzed by including more typical cases and data, in order to improve the understanding of the institutional design to solve the tragedy of the tourism commons.

References

1. Su Y, Li R, Ma H, Huang L. Adaptive change of institutions and dynamic governance of the tragedy of the tourism commons: Evidence from rural China. J Hospit Tour Manage. 2022;53:32-49.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar]

2. Butler RW. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geograph. 1980;24(1):5-12.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar]

3. Cooper C, Jackson S. Destination life cycle: The Isle of Man case study. Annal Tour Res. 1989;16(3):377-398.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar]

4. Weaver DB. Grand Cayman Island and the resort cycle concept. J Trav Res. 1990;29(2):9-15.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar]

5. Wei X, Hu Q. Development of rural tourism in China: The tragedy of anti-commons. Front Public Health. 2022;10:939754.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar] [PubMed]

6. Healy RG. The “common pool” problem in tourism landscapes. Annal Tour Res. 1994;21(3):596-611.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar]

7. Mbaiwa JE. The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development on the Okavango Delta, north-western Botswana. J Arid Environ. 2003;54(2):447-467.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar]

8. Schubert SF, Schamel G. Sustainable tourism development: A dynamic model incorporating resident spillovers. Tour Econ. 2021;27(7):1561-1587.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar]

9. Yang C, Lin Z, Huang J, Cheng T. A dynamic tax model based on destination lifecycle for sustainable tourism development. J Trav Res. 2023;62(1):217-232.

   [Cross ref] [Google scholar]

10. Higham J, Ellis E, Maclaurin J. Tourist aviation emissions: A problem of collective action. J Trav Res. 2019;58(4):535-548.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar]

11. Meo MS, Arshed N, Shahid M, Bello WO. Differences in tourism demand: A comparison between developed and developing economies. JISR Manage Soc Sci Econ. 2020;18(2):43-60.

    [Cross ref] [Google scholar]