However, in the tourist literature, these arguments became diverted into a debate about the authenticity or otherwise of this experience (e.g. MacCannell, 1976; Cohen, 1987), serving to focus attention on the attractions of the tourist destination. Such a shift objectified the destination as place — a specific geographical site was presented to the tourist for their gaze (Urry, 2002). Thus the manner of presentation became all important and its authenticity or otherwise the focus of analysis: ‘It will also be suggested that objects of the tourist gaze can be effectively classified in terms of three key dichotomies, of which the romantic/collective is one (others are authentic/inauthentic and historical/modern)’, says Urry (2002: 75). The tourists themselves became synonymous with the Baudelarian flaneur (French for ‘gazer’: ‘the strolling flaneur was a forerunner of the 20th century tourist’) (Urry, 2002: 127). This flaneur was generally perceived as escaping from the workaday world for an ‘ephemeral’, ‘fugitive’ and ‘contingent’ leisure experience (e.g. Rojek, 1993: 216).
Similarly to the way in which this type of ‘flanerie’ (Urry, 2002: 135) characterized tourism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, alternative tourism has characterized the latter part of the 20th century. Tourists began searching for new and exciting forms of travel in defiance of the mass-produced tourism product borne out of the industrial revolution and, prior to that, the need for social standing (Weaver & Opperman, 2000; Hall, 2007). Backpacking, adventure tourism and ecotourism are some of the types of alternative tourism that emerged during this time and have since confirmed, via their popularity, their place as targeted market segments. The convergence of these forms of tourism, their appeal to young travellers and the advent of the internet created an alternative tourism perfect storm. Niche markets were developed that allowed the tourist to choose the holiday they felt best suited their needs and wants, while at the same time maintaining an appropriate level of social status among their peers.
Within the literature, the provision of alternative tourism is fundamentally aligned to social and environmental sustainability. Factors such as impacts upon the cultural traditions of the host community (the community associated with the destination area), biodiversity and environmental degradation dominate such literature in the late 1990s and early 21st century (e.g. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Cronin, 1990; Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups, 1991; Richards & Hall, 2000; Sofield, 2003; Weaver, 2006).
The question of sustainability — and sustainable development by implication — in relation to alternative forms of tourism experiences has become central in the analysis and provision of these types of experiences. The World Conservation Strategy initially posited sustainability as an underlying premise for a large number of projects based in developing countries, and Our Common Future (widely known as the Brundtland Report) attempted to give it an operational context (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; De la Court, 1990; Farrell & Runyan, 1991; Hare, 1991), which enabled agencies to engender it into their operating philosophies. For the past decade, global sustainable development has been promoted by the 2000 United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals of which tourism was identified as an important contributing industry (Ruhanen et al., 2007).
Alternative tourism has developed into a significant area of tourism experience research (Holden, 1984; Cohen, 1987; Vir Sigh et al., 1989; Pleumarom, 1990; Weiler & Hall, 1992; Smith & Eadington, 1997; Conway & Timms, 2010; Isaac, 2010; Pegg et al., 2012). However, it is important to note that a number of authors (R.W. Butler, 1990; Cohen, 1995; Wheeller, 2003; Weaver, 2011) have incorporated alternative tourism into the analysis of ‘mass tourism’, thus subordinating it to mainstream tourism research. Questions thus arise as to the feasibility of alternative tourism being differentiated as a separate construct or different paradigm. This has been a problem historically within new and emergent areas of research, as explained in the case of feminist research by Stanley and Wise (1984). Later in this book we explore whether volunteer tourism, like other forms of alternative tourism, is showing signs of being co-opted into the dominant capitalist paradigm of mass tourism that celebrates the tourist as consumer rather than as co-producer of sustainable living. However, before such a critique can be fully considered, it is first necessary to look at the manifestation of volunteer tourism as it has arisen as part of the alternative tourism movement.
Volunteer Tourism as the Ultimate Alternative Tourism?
When scholars first turned their attention to early volunteer tourism in the late 1990s, it was not well understood. Necessarily, this early scholarship, including Wearing’s (2001) and McGehee’s (2002) work, was narrowly focussed upon the relatively few existing volunteer tourism projects in operation at that time. In short, early work positioned volunteer tourism as a possibility for the future, and the future is now. Alternative forms of tourism such as volunteer tourism have come of age over the past decade. Growing interest in volunteer tourism has led to clearer definitions and a greater differentiation from other forms of tourism and volunteering. In Volunteer Tourism: Experiences That Make a Difference, the following definition was offered:
… ‘volunteer tourism’ applies to those tourists who, for various reasons, volunteer in an organized way to undertake holidays that might involve the aiding or alleviating the material poverty of some groups in society, the restoration of certain environments, or research into aspects of society or environment.
(Wearing, 2001: 1)
This definition has provided a useful mechanism for clarifying and classifying a particular type of tourism. However, it has its limits. Ambiguities around what constitutes volunteerism and tourism challenge discrete definitional boundaries (Benson, 2011). Moreover, such a definition does not question the limits of volunteer tourism, and how it manifests in a wide range of contexts. Volunteer tourism (now also sometime termed ‘voluntourism’ and/or volunteer vacations), although still a fledgling concept and practice, has moved from the periphery closer to the centre of tourism research. In part, this is because the last 10 years have seen a steady increase in interest and practice with a corresponding rise in the scholarship of volunteer tourism.
This book considers new examples of volunteer tourist operations, including organizations such as Youth Challenge International (YCI, 2008, 2010), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Earthwatch, Conservation Volunteers Australia (CVA), British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV) and Mobility International USA (MIUSA), to name just a few. Lesser known examples include Antipodeans, Blue Ventures and Atalaya Peru.
These operations and the projects they undertake vary in location, size, participant characteristics and numbers, and organizational purpose. The common element in these operations, however, is that the participants can largely be viewed as volunteer tourists. That is, they are seeking a tourist experience that is mutually beneficial, that will contribute not only to their personal development, but also positively and directly to the social, natural and/or economic environments in which they participate. The philosophy of Explorations in Travel (EIT, 2008), a US-based volunteer work-placement firm, provides a good insight:
Travelling is a way to discover new things about ourselves and learn to see ourselves more clearly. Volunteering abroad is a way to spend time within another culture, to become part of new community, to experience life from a different perspective … Every community needs people willing to volunteer their time, energy and money to projects that will improve the