Skip to content

Category: Practices

Island Tourism and Colonialism

Whether in the absence or stereotypical representation of the resident, or in the identification of the island with its ideal, the foreign gaze and control over representation have their mark. The island element, according to Adam Grydehøj, Yaso Nadarajah and Ulunnguaq Markussen (2020), played a role in the construction of colonial and neocolonial spheres of power. Moreover, we are not talking about a purely imaginary location here – like, for instance, the island of Caliban, whether in William Shakespeare or Aimé Césaire – but about a particular dependency that, according to Yolanda Martínez (2018), remains operational. One could even identify a historical trend in the use of some so-called ‘overseas’ territories as a laboratory or model in the assimilation of other island regions or, we would even say, other continents. Concepts used to refer to islands far from their metropolises such as “overseas territories” or “outermost regions”, used in the European framework, already denote the complex link between insularity and colonialism. Some researchers have projected this link to the constitution of the insular element as a tourist destination, especially when this insularity is linked to geostrategically more “southern” territories of European countries with continental capitals that were “their” metropolises. Helen Kapstein (2017) identifies in this ability to generate “other places” a particular origin, linked to the constitutive imaginary of European nations.

Carla Guerrón (2011) studied the tourist use of the concept of “island paradise” derived from the projection of conceptions such as the “discovery” of islands, even when they are inhabited, and the representations of the colonizers survive in current representations. Thus, for example, although the Caribbean islands are among the most socially and ethnically heterogeneous in popular culture, they are reproduced as simplified and uniform versions, marked by exoticism and exuberance. On the island, time seems to stand still. Islands, Kapstein writes, function as a particular microcosm on which the nation can project its stereotypes. In this sense, Anthony Soares writes that “Today, in a supposedly postcolonial context, islands offer perhaps the most potent, distressing and anomalous images of the neocolonial project, and can therefore be seen as examples of the complex afterlives of empire” (2017: xvi ). In the world of global capitalism, the simplicity of the identification between insularity and colony is challenged by the capacity of islands themselves to generate hierarchical power dynamics (emblematically, in the headquarters of large hotel groups, based in the Balearic Islands and extending their dynamics in the Caribbean). The fact remains, however, that a certain colonial imaginary survives in the representation of the islands, that is, in their audio-visual representation, in the identification of the resident as the servant of the visitor, in the national hierarchies that are imposed in the very dynamics of tourist hospitality. Tina Jamieson, for example, studied it in the permanence of the idea of exoticism that is maintained in the use of certain Pacific islands as wedding venues for tourists who usually come from the former metropolises (Hampton; Jeyacheya 2014). Louis Turner and John Ash (1975) had been writing that tourism, from its beginnings in the nineteenth century, became an agent of “empire” consolidation. It would be worth assessing how late capitalism varies this “imperialist” perception into forms of geostrategic domination or exploitation of natural resources, which no longer respond to the centre-metropolis versus periphery dialectic. This link between colonial ideology and the mythified image of the island would justify, for some, a certain specificity in the development of tourism in island enclaves. The recurrence of island segmentation in tourism promotion, which coexists, of course, with other segmentations equally determined by more or less colonial imaginaries – the desert, the Orient, the indigenous, the wild Nordic landscape, the ‘historical’ cities – seems to accompany this idea which, however, has been questioned.

Mercè Picornell

References:

Grydehøj, Adam; Nadarajah, Yaso; Markussen, Ulunnguaq (2018). “Islands of indigeneity: Cultural Disctinction, Indigenous Territory and Island Spaciality”. Area, 52(1): 14-22.

Guerrón Montero, Carla (2011). “On Tourism and the Constructions of ‘Paradise islands’ in Central America and the Caribbean”. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 30: 1. 21-34.

Kapstein, Helen (2017). Postcolonial Nations, Islands, and Tourism. Londres i Nova York: Rowman i Littlefield International.

Martínez, Yolanda (2018). “Colonialismo y decolonialidad archipelágica en el Caribe”. Tabula Rasa: revista de humanidades, 29. 37-64.

Turner, Louis; Ash, John (1975). The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery. Nova York: St. Martin’s Press.

Tourism and Island Myth

In the configuration of the tourist image of most island destinations, their mythical condition is fundamental. The fanciful echoes of their names or nicknames for islands cross the boundary between reality and fiction, from Ulysses’ Ithaca to the Fortunate Islands that some have wanted to locate in Macaronesia. In literature, islands refer to a place of refuge or a remote, natural, uninhabited space, even when – as in The Tempest or Robinson Crusoe – it is actually inhabited. The fantasy of the insular creates a fascination linked to the idea of otherness, distance or separation (Sharpley 2012). The insular myth has resulted in a falsification or simplification of the meaning of the word ‘island’ itself, which would refer, according to Charles C. Lim and Chris Cooper (2008), to an idea of fantasy, escape from routine and normality. This is the topic that portrays the island as a small, tropical territory (Baldacchino 2008), ignoring the diversity of island territories that do not fit into the category. According to David Harrison (2001) this ambivalence still prevails in contemporary representations, in which the island is presented as an escape from the everyday frenzy and a distant and inhospitable place. It is also used in advertising as a claim for products as varied as shampoos, colognes or soft drinks. John Gillis (2007: 274) places islands among the “mythical geographies” of Western culture, where they are associated with remoteness, difference and exoticism. The metaphorical idea of the insular – explains Pete Hay (2006: 30) – can even make it difficult for us to remember the reality of islands, and their diversity. The mythical impulse of the insular seems to irreversibly guide the tourist conceptualization of island enclaves, and conditions the tourist’s gaze which, according to John Urry, conditions not only the tourist’s expectations, but can even modify the landscape, that is, adapt it to what the myth sells, exaggerating, for example, what in the Canaries can resemble the Tropical or creating a green locus amoenus (pleasant place) ofgrass planted on the golf courses of Mediterranean islands threatened by the lack of rain for much of the summer.

Mercè Picornell

References:

Baldacchino, Godfrey (2008). “Studying Islands: On Whose Terms? Some Epistemological and Methodological Challenges to the Pursuit of Island Studies”. Island Studies Journal, 3: 1. 37-56.

Gillis, John (2004). Islands of the Mind: How the Human Imagination created the Atlantic World. Nova York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hall, M. C. (2012). “Island, islandness, vulnerability and resilience”. Tourism Recreation Research, 37(2), 177-181.

Harrison, David, “Islands, Image and Tourism”, Tourism Recreation Research, 26(3), 9-14.

Lim, Charles C. (2008). “Beyond sustainability: optimising island tourism development”. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11: 1, 89-103.

Island Tourism: Specificity

There are many islands that project themselves globally as tourist destinations and are mostly known as such. This projection is often independent of that of the continent to which they are usually symbolically linked, or of their particular administrative condition (i.e. whether or not they are island states). Thus, those who visit Hawaii do not do so as a stopover on their route through the United States, and the insular character of Malta or Cyprus certainly overlooks their statehood. Although there are specific studies on tourism on so-called “cold” islands, the critical bibliography on island tourism mostly refers to small islands in warm environments (warm water islands) that can be promoted as sun and beach destinations.

This identification has not prevented critical reflection on the existence of a specificity in the characterisation of tourism in island environments. For some authors, this seems more influenced by the island myth than by the possibility of isolating specific features of the tourism that develops in island environments in comparison with other localities. R. Sharpley (2012), for example, questions whether islands are popular destinations because of their geographical condition or because the services they offer are more frequent on islands. According to this author, the processes that affect tourism in island contexts – connectivity, migration, contact with other realities – are not specific and suggest that the tourist singularity of islands would be more metaphorical than unreal.

Other authors, however, turn to the socio-environmental factors of tourism areas to identify the particularities that should be considered in the analysis of their  development. These have to do, mostly, with two fundamental factors. The first would be the vulnerability, especially of ecosystems, limited in their own geographical delimitation and which, in view of the increase in population and services that tourism entails, could result in an overexploitation of natural resources (McLeod; Dodds and Butler, 2021; Hall 2015; Oreja 2008). Therefore, there is an extensive critical bibliography that tries to identify resilience or optimisation formulas that could guarantee more sustainable tourism operations. D.B. Weaver (2017) identifies a “virtuous periphery syndrome” resulting from both necessity and legacy, which transforms small islands into places of resilience and innovation. Second, especially on small islands with no industrial development prior to tourism operations, tourism has replaced an agricultural or subsistence economy that is difficult to maintain in the age of globalisation. Weaver considers tourism a suitable formula for economic development, where the apparently negative features of island contexts would be transformed into positive ones by the tourism industry. This monoculture, however, is often considered a form of dependency that may even be reminiscent of imperialism and that makes island economies and populations dependent on factors that their inhabitants and their governments cannot control. That´s what happened, for example, with the Covid-19 pandemic and the need that was raised to establish action plans in the face of climate change that would heavily threaten island enclaves. Not all inhabitants, notes Buhalis (1999), share in the wealth associated with tourism development; on the contrary, most locals are involved only in secondary, low-skilled and low-paid jobs. Even more so when the capital is accumulated by the large corporations and leisure multinationals. Finally, it should be considered that Baum (1996) and Baldacchino (2013) refer to another relevant factor in the specificity of island enclaves as tourist destinations and which relates to a certain perception of wholeness that would allow to have the perception of being visiting “a” reality. Thus, for example, it seems more feasible to visit Madagascar than France or Thailand, despite being smaller in area. In fact, this same feeling favours the creation of tourist “brands” more easily than in continental destinations, where, however, it also occurs.

Mercè Picornell

References:

Baldacchino, G., 2013. Island tourism. In: Holden, A., Fennell, D. (Eds.), A Handbook of Tourism and the Environment. Routledge,. London, pp. 200–208.

Baum, T. G. 1996. “The Fascination of Islands: The Tourist Perspective”, D. G. Lockhart i D.Drakakis-Smith, eds. Island Tourism: Problems and Perspectives. Londres: Pinter, 21-35.

Buhalis, Dimitrios (1999). “Tourism on the Greek Islands: Issues of Peripherality, Competitiveness and Development”, International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(5). 341-358.

Hall, M. C. (2012). “Island, islandness, vulnerability and resilience”. Tourism Recreation Research, 37(2), 177-181.

McLeod, Michelle; Dodds, Rachel i Richard Butler (2021). “Introduction to special issue on island tourism resilience”, Tourism Geographies, 23(3), 361-370.

Oreja Rodríguez, J. R. Et al (2008). “The sustainability of island destinations: Tourism area life cycle and teleological perspectives. The case of Tenerife”. Tourism Management, 29(1). 53-64.

Sharpley, R. 2012. “Island tourism or tourism on islands?”, Tourism Recreation Research, 37(2), 167-172.

Weaver, D. B. 2017. “Core-periphery relationships and the sustainability paradox of small island tourism”. Tourism Recreation Research, 42(1), 11-21.

Island Vulnerability and Resilience

Vulnerability and resilience are nebulous and contested concepts. Island studies has provided plenty for understanding them, sorting out differences, and proposing ways forward. Two key points are (i) vulnerability and resilience are not opposites and (ii) they are processes, not states.

Vulnerability and resilience are social constructions. Many languages do not have direct translations for the words and many cultures do not have the notions, especially as defined and debated in academia. As such, both must be explained in detail to be communicated and acted on. Island studies contributes significantly by noting that both exist simultaneously, meshing with each other, and that both must arise by people and societies interacting with themselves and their environments. They are also much more than interaction, since nature and culture cannot be separated, as is the case for society and the environment. Thus, vulnerability and resilience are simply part of being, rather than distinct entities or traits.

As such, they express and espouse reasons for ending up with situations and circumstances where dealing with opportunity and adversity is more possible or less possible. They are long-term processes describing why observed states exist, not merely descriptions of those states. These explanations must cover society and the environment interlacing rather than disconnecting from one another and must involve histories and potential futures, not merely snapshots in space and time.

For islands, environmental phenomena and changes are frequently seen as exposing or creating vulnerabilities and resiliences. Yet an earthquake or the changing climate do not tell people and societies how to respond. Instead, those with power, opportunities, and resources make decisions about long-term governance aspects including equality, equity, collective support, and societal services.

We know how to construct infrastructure to withstand earthquakes. This task cannot happen overnight, but requires building codes, planning regulations, skilled professions, and choices in order to succeed. Taking island examples, leaders inside and outside Haiti controlling the country over decades decided not to build for earthquakes, leading to devastating disasters in 2010 and 2021. Meanwhile, Japan adopted a different approach meaning that few collapses were witnessed despite earthquakes in 2003, 2011 (which had a terrible tsunami toll), and 2022 that were far stronger than Haiti’s.

This long-term process of stopping or permitting earthquake-related damage is a societal choice, meaning that disasters emerge from the choice of vulnerability and resilience processes. Disasters do not come from earthquakes or other environmental phenomena, so they are not from nature and “natural disaster” is a misnomer.

Since climate change affects the weather and weather does not cause disasters, climate change does not often affect disasters. For instance, islands have experienced tropical cyclones for millennia, with the storm season happening annually. Plenty of knowledge exists to avoid damage and plenty of time has existed to implement this knowledge, yet disasters are still witnessed frequently such as Hurricane Maria in the Caribbean in 2017 and Cyclone Harold in the Pacific in 2020. When people and infrastructure are not ready for a storm, then disasters occur. Climate change increases intensity and decreases frequency of tropical cyclones, yet does not impact long-term human choices to prepare (creating resilience) or not (creating vulnerability). The choice not to do so is a crisis of human choice, not a “climate crisis” or “climate emergency”—so those phrases are also misnomers.

Island studies has long taught the islander mantra that environmental and social changes are always to be expected at all time and space scales. Vulnerability becomes the social process of expecting life to be constant and not being ready to deal with different or altering environments, at short (e.g. earthquake) or long (e.g. climate change) time scales. Vulnerabilities most commonly arise because people do not have the options, power, or resources to change their situation due to factors such as poverty, oppression, and marginalisation. Others make the decision for the majority to be vulnerable. Resilience becomes the process of continual adjustment and flexibility to make the most of what the ever-shifting environment and society can offer to support everyone’s life and livelihoods. To do so requires options, power, and resources.

Yet island studies demonstrates that limits to resilience are nonetheless evident. Human history displays a long list of island communities being wiped out and entire islands being forcibly abandoned. Manam Island, Papua New Guinea has been evacuated a few times due to volcanic eruptions. Many Pacific island communities disappeared in the fourteenth century due to a major regional climatic and sea-level change while nuclear testing during the Cold War left many atolls uninhabitable. The Beothuk indigenous people of Newfoundland died out due to violent and disease-ridden colonialism. In the 1960s and 1970s, Chagossians were forced off their Indian Ocean archipelago to make way for a military base. All such situations test resilience—or lose it entirely.

Island studies thus demonstrates the construction of vulnerability and resilience as concepts, as processes, and as realities, illustrating the care in interpretation and application needed for both in order to capture a comprehensive picture. Vulnerability and resilience neither contradict nor oppose each other, rather overlapping and morphing according to context and nuance. Island vulnerability and resilience are very much based on the perspectives of those observing and affected.

Ilan Kelman

Islandness

At present, there are two prevailing views of what islandness is, and which is the difference between this term and its relative term, insularity. The first perspective adopts the narrative that islandness is somewhat an academic evolution of insularity and the second suggests that insularity is a standard feature like small size, remoteness and isolation, special experiential identity and rich and vulnerable natural and cultural environment. Adding to the public discussion that relates to how sciences view islands and consequently how islands are managed through public policies, it is crucial to shed light to islandness as a contemporary term.

As Conkling (2007, 200) argues, islands are most fundamentally defined by the presence of often frightening and occasionally impassable bodies of water that create a sense of a place closer to the natural world and to neighbors whose eccentricities are tolerated and embraced. Given this affirmation, he argues (Conkling 2007, 200) that “islandness is often considered as a metaphysical sensation deriving from the heightened experiences that accompany the physical isolation of island life, […] as an important metacultural phenomenon that helps maintain island communities in spite of daunting economic pressures to abandon them”. He briefly describes islandness as “a construct of the mind, a singular way of looking at the world”. It is either being on an island or not. 

In any case, given that both concepts (insularity and islandness) communicate, islandness is also assumed to include four main characteristics/aspects: boundedness, smallness, isolation and littorality (Kelman 2020, 6). Boundedness describes the borders and the physical limits of islands. Smallness refers to land area, population, resources and livelihood opportunities. Isolation stands for distance, marginalization and separation from other land areas, people and communities. Last but not least, littorality, refers to land-water interactions, coastal zones and intersections of achipelagos and aquapelagos (Kelman 2020, 7).

Additionally, Baldacchino (2004, 278) from another more practical perspective, argues that “islandness is an intervening variable that does not determine, but contours and conditions social and physical events in distinct, and distinctly relevant, ways”. He underlines that “this is no weakness or deficiency; rather, therein  lies the field’s major strength and enormous potential” (Baldacchino 2006, 9). He also makes an interesting suggestion about the link between islandness and insularity: “researchers and practitioners should be aware of how deep-rooted and stultifying the social consequences of islandness can be and this specific feature can actually be called insularity” Baldacchino (2008, 49). So, he assumes that islandness is not a synonymous of insularity, but the latter is one of many features of islandness that describes a specific condition that characterizes island communities. Insularity can be regarded as a brief term to describe insular remoteness which can include three types of remoteness: the physical, the imaginative and the politico legal (Nicolini and Perrin 2020).

There is sufficient evidence that islands – small islands in particular – are distinct enough sites, or harbour extreme enough renditions of more general processes, to warrant their continued respect as subjects/objects of academic focus and inquiry. There is a debate within the nissology framework, i.e. the study of islands in their own terms, about the uniqueness of islands. Still others find islands ‘living labs’, central to understanding what happens subsequently on mainland territory. Islands are often viewed as places that need to be saved and treated differently from the mainland to reach dominant continental standards. Indeed, islands have always been a bone of contention, either seen as paradise or hell. 

Cross-disciplinary research on the essence of islands and what constitutes the insular condition within a growing framework of “nissology”, has reinforced the need to distinct insularity from islandness.  No island is insular, meaning “entire to itself”. An approach that is based on the argument that islands need to be studied on their own terms which is also aligned with a more politically correct usage of relative terminology, has gradually substituted insularity with islandness. Insularity as a term, has been extensively used in academia and public speaking to describe expresses ‘objective’ and measurable characteristics, including small areal size, small population (small market), limited resources, isolation, and remoteness, as well as unique natural and cultural environments, that synthesize an insular condition. However, it also involves a distinctive ‘experiential identity’, which is a non-measurable quality expressing the various symbols that islands are connected to (Spilanis et al. 2011, 9). The term “insularity” has unwittingly come along with a sematic baggage of separation and backwardness. This negativism does not mete out fair justice to the subject matter (Baldacchino 2004,272).

And it is of great importance that islandness and all four dimensions mentioned above, needs to be more closely examined trough various discipline lenses. The core of  “island studies” is the constitution of “islandness” and its possible or plausible influence by the traditional subject uni-disciplines (such as archaeology, economics or literature), subject multi-disciplines (such as political economy or biogeography) or policy foci/issues (such as governance, social capital, waste disposal, language extinction or sustainable tourism) (Baldacchino 2006, 9). The evolution in terminology that relates to islands is only one of the signs that affirms that islands are indeed loci for major issues and developments in the 21st century, which their being studied in their own terms considered to be one of the most fundamental epistemic challenges today.

Mitropoulou Angeliki & Spilanis Ioannis

References

Baldacchino, G. 2004. The coming of age of island studies. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 95(3) : 272-283.

—. 2006. Islands, island studies, island studies journal. Island Studies Journal1(1): 3-18.

—. 2008. Studying islands: on whose terms? Some epistemological and methodological challenges to the pursuit of island studies. Island Studies Journal3(1): 37-56.

Conkling, P. 2007. On islanders and islandness. Geographical Review, 97(2): 191-201.

Kelman, I. 2020. Islands of vulnerability and resilience: Manufactured stereotypes?. Area52(1): 6-13.

Nicolini, M., & Perrin, T. 2020. Geographical Connections: Law, Islands, and Remoteness. Liverpool Law Review, 1-14.

Spilanis, I., Kizos, T., Biggi, M., Vaitis, M., Kokkoris, G. et al. (2011). The Development of the Islands – European Islands and Cohesion Policy (EUROISLANDS). Final report. Luxemburg: ESPON & University of the Aegean. Available at: https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/inception_report_full_version.pdf (Accessed: 07 December 2020)

« Previous Page