| Popis: |
Small-scale tourism areas began in the 1970's as drifter enclaves that formed a network of budget tourist establishments separate, but parallel to mass tourism. During its infancy, small-scale tourism was suppressed by the government, fearing the moral decadence allegedly associated with the influx of this type of development. Over the past few years, however, such development has been promoted aggressively by the government, believing it to be a catalyst for rural development. The phenomenal growth of small-scale tourism development in Malaysia was induced both by the growing popularity of alternative tourism in the West and the boom in domestic tourism. As the destination areas evolved, the drifters were being gradually replaced by middle class foreign tourists mainly from Western Europe, Singaporeans and, lately, domestic tourists. While foreign tourists were attracted to the kampung ambiance, domestic tourists chose these places due to the lack of other affordable alternatives to the luxury hotels. These conflicting demands are reflected in the current supply of small-scale tourism development. While some establishments have managed to maintain their distinct kampung image, many local operators have sacrificed these in the construction of 'tourist factories' to accommodate as many tourists as possible. More importantly, many of the local people have sold or leased their land to outside entrepreneurs due to the lack of capital. Using two case studies (Cherating and Pulau Langkawi), this research analysed the evolution of small-scale tourism in Malaysia in relation to the changing types of tourists and their motivation, the entrepreneurial process and the political/planning influences. It concludes that small-scale tourism development in Malaysia is a form of circumstantial alternative tourism that is equivalent to the incipient stage of conventional mass tourism. Furthermore, it is not sustainable in terms of protecting the environment, ensuring active local involvement and maintaining tourist satisfaction. Finally, it suggests that government intervention is essential to manage the growth of such developments o as to prevent the displacement/marginalisation of the local community; maintain its uniqueness and hence attractiveness of the tourism product; and prevent the destruction of the very resources in which developments depend. |
