BellaOnline Forums Travel and Culture Solo Travel Travel vs. Tourism?

I'm working on an article about the difference between travel and tourism. My friend James says travel is getting from Point A to Point B and that tourism is traveling for pleasure. Any thoughts?

I'm not sure if the two can always be separated. BTW, the two definitions you listed are the first two entries for travel and tourism in the online dictionary I just checked, so I suggest you define the two as you are going to write about them.

Is travel just going from A to B? I don't think so. Travel to me can be a walk down the street or two weeks somewhere I've never been before. Is it tourism only if the business of travel is involved? Or is it tourism only when the travellers are annoying to the locals? Does something educational have to be involved for it to be tourism or can travellers learn stuff and get pleasure?

I look forward to reading your decision....

- Rae

Intuitively: travelling is an activity that can be afforded by reasonably wealthy people, who have time and money to do so. They take care of everything. They have something specific in mind, some places they want to visit, some things they want to do. They do all this independently from anyone. They book their hotels, planes, car rentals, etc. themselves, choosing exactly what they want.

Tourism is an activity performed by medium class workers, usually during their holiday time. They have no facilities of their own to relax and take a rest and maybe weather is not good. So they go south, to where it's shiny and with nothing particular in mind spend their time on the beach or going to some local cultural centers, but this is usually organised by a third party. Tourism is for people who have nothing to do and nowhere to go during their holidays, so they go somewhere where it is generally "pleasant".

That's my perception of the two, sorry if the ideas are mixed and slightly unclear.

Rae, I think you've asked some good questions here. The crucial point is to come up with a definition, not that everybody can agree on, but that works to help us think about what we're doing when we leave home (even for a stroll).

AINTD, I can't quite see the class differences as being the important distinction. I do think that different social classes tend to do different kinds of travel AND tourism.

You might be right, though, that "rich folks" might be more inclined to "book it all themselves," though in my experience, they just as often sign up for upscale tours, spas, travel clubs that own their own jets, etc. And the more working class folks I know do tend to think the organized tours are a cheaper way to go, but I'm here to try to convince them that actually I can travel CHEAPER outside the organized travel industry.

Looking forward to hearing more ideas on this, before I actually sit down to write about it.

Where do people usually go is tourism, the rest is travelling. Center and North europeans go to the south of Spain, because it not expensive, it's sunny, the food is nice, etc, they can have some rest for relatively small money. People who have more resources, time and particular interests, go to "less attractive" places where it's not necessarily sunny and cheap, but they go there on purpose.

Maybe you are right and maybe you can go somewhere and it will cost you less without travel agency in between, but do people really want it? They have one month off, what do they do? They call an agency and everything is set up for them. They don't want any headache, no problems, no nothing. They want a rest as fast, easy and convenient as possible and as long as prices are reasonably low, they go for it.

I have to disagree. Pretty much none of my friends use a travel agency. They *want* their vacation to be the way they want it, not the way some travel agent decides it's going to be. Also with the web it's super easy to find exactly what you're looking for.

When I want to go to the everglades, I web-search on cool hotels/motels down there and choose one I like. I don't want a travel agency choosing it for me - they won't know exactly what appeals to me personally.

Lisa, you haven't said what is it you disagree with. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> And actually, it does look like you agree. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> And your friends are travellers and not tourists.

Think of the word "tourist" - "tour" - it is just some organized activity one pays for. It's dumb, uninspiring and very depressive to see actually. When people choose something, investigate into something, think of their goals, then it's travelling. As for social classes: the richer you are, the more time and resources you may have for this. The less time (and more work) you have and the less money you have to spend on vacation, then you'll just go anywhere someone says "It's good!" and become tourist. Is my point more clear now?

I was disagreeing with you saying that a lot of people who go on vacation just sign up for tours because it's easy. I also don't think it's a rich/poor thing.

Lots of rich people sign up for high-end tours that cost a lot of money. In fact many poor people *don't* sign up for tours because they can be very expensive - far more than if you went out yourself and found a cheap B&B and cheap restaurants. I don't think it's that simple.

I think it's more a timid / not timid thing. Someone who is afraid of being on their own, of getting into trouble, of seeing the "right things", might sign up for a tour because someone else is "taking care of them". This is especially true with older people who might need physical assistance doing things. If they go with a tour, they know their luggage will be carried for them, their special dietary needs will always be looked after, the hotels will be pre-checked for handicap rooms and so on.

But if you're more sure of yourself, then you usually would rather book things yourself because you know what you want. You know that in City A you want to see items X, Y and Z because they interest you personally - regardless of whether or not someone else thinks they are "important". And you choose to stay in hotel DDD because it suits your particular needs, whatever those are.

It's always more efficient to do it yourself and to it right, rather than leave it to someone else and have to undo their mistakes when you're halfway through your vacation <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But if you have no idea WHAT you are doing or what this place you're visiting is about, you might ask someone else to handle it, because you don't want to "miss something".

I guess I always do a lot of research on a place before visiting it - I enjoy having background on the things I'm seeing and the people I'm talking to. So I think it's a great shame to be so ignorant of a location that you have to have someone else tell you "what to see" - that you don't even have an idea of what things of what they offer would appeal to YOU personally.

Yes, tastes often differ. I might be interested inseeing something no tour will ever lead me through and don't care at all about their "center item" of the programme. I guess we could come up with an acceptable definitions:

Tourist: a person who visits a place to get some rest. I many cases everything is organized for him, both accomodations and programme. He sees what is shown to him, he hears what is spoken. He just spends time away from problems without any particular idea of what he's doing at this place.

Traveller: a person who has a particular interest in seeing a particular place. He may use agency to organize the technical part (plane, hotel, car rental) but then he's more on his own. He visits a place not because it's a way to have a rest, but to see something he always wanted to and be somewhere he always wanted to.

You could say that travelling is a hobby and as such, you usually do everything related to it yourself and have much pleasure just of the process of travelling.

Tourism is an activity to change life's everyday routine, to change the everyday scenery for a short time.

As for the poor/rich thing, I guess rich have more resources to do travelling, not they are better "suited" to do travelling.

That's my perception of it. Please comment.

OK I think I can agree with that <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Oh goodness, I'm so honoured. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Jk. Case closed.

Ha! Just when you think the whole thing is settled, I'm going to jump back in here with a different slant.

How's this?

Tourism is anything you can pick up a brochure on, even online.

Travel is the process of trying to reach into the real place, the place where the real people live. Travel is the process of meeting locals, of walking the earth at this point of geography, of noticing how people live, how they celebrate, how they ARE in this place.

Lisa, while I don't often agree with Edward Said, the Palestinian professor who wrote Orientalism, I do see his point when he says that we so often approach a place TEXTUALLY, that is, with our readings about it so much in our heads that we don't REALLY see the place itself.

So I actually try to do as little research about a place as possible. If I'm going to visit a tourist site, I want it to be something a local has told me, "You've gotta see this. I'm proud of this. This is important about my place."

I think I've found this topic too late, but if you wnat to write a really critical/academic article, you might want to read The Language of Tourism - A Sociolinguistic Perspective by Graham M S Dann (1996). This is such a fascinating book on the way different types of tourism are sold through the type of language used, and on the differences between travel and tourism.

If you have already written the article, I'd love to read it, if you could let me know where to find it!

Jennimoth

I've written a couple of pieces about the topic here at Bella, but I appreciate the heads up about the book. Always looking for new, in-depth books on my favorite topic.

Six Tips for Independent Travelers and Approaching a New Place both deal with the issue of becoming a traveler rather than a tourist.

You might also want to check out my Maybe Future Travel Book over on my LiveJournal blog.

What's your take on the question, jennimoth?

Also, check out a more detailed analysis of seeing through the lenses of the books and brochures we read here: Seeing through Lenses

I'm Spanish and to us a tourist is a person who books everything, everything is planned and they don't mix with the locals (they don't have much time). A traveller is someone who improvises, he sightsees but also tries to understand a culture talking to the locals.

obaya. Una tourista y uno viajero. Hay una gran diferencia, verdad? <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Bob. Absolutely. Un turista (tourist) y un viajero (traveller) are radically different to us. To us, it's a question of attitude.

This is coming in way overdue, but I am writing a paper regarding the above topic. However, I would like to look at it from a geographical perspective.

I remember reading somewhere before about the rapid rise of tourism in South East Asia. The writer questioned whether tourism really lets you explore new things, and find out about more about the place you've visited. He mentioned that bringing your lifestyle to the destination without interacting with the locals, or moving about on your own basically removes the locality of the area. (In this case, the article described the booming luxury travel to Cambodia and Vietnam - 6-star hotels, resorts and fully serviced and planned trips)

In rebuttal to this, one of the hotl managers said (roughly in these words): It does not matter by what means you move about - even if you are travelling in a Benz from the luxurious hotel to the tourist spot, what you see and what you feel would sufficiently allow you to experience what the place is like.

The writer could not understand though, how looking through a window without actually stepping out to interact with the locals and find out about other things which makes the place what it is, could make the experience local.

What I think is, travelling in a nice car through a dirt road along a local street actually keeps the individual within his own space, and comfort zone. Without crossing that border, what he knows of the place is what he has been conditioned to understand - from what he has been told, what he has read, and what bias he may have about the place.

This seems to differentiate the traveller fro the tourist in that the tourist is still looking out from the bubble that he has brought along from home, while the traveller takes the effort to break down certain pre-existing boundaries. Of course, I did not take into account what sort of feelings the locals may have towards foreigners coming into their country at will, since this is not the main focus of the paper.

I would very much appreciate it if someone could give me some comments, ideas or even criticism about this.

Oh, it is a complicated problem. I don't konw how to distinguish them. I just follow my own policy, that is to travel for fun, no fun no travel.

Great points brought out here. The attitude and not the money or class is what separates the conscious traveler from the unconscious tourist. The traveler has an awareness and a sensitivity that there is a culture already there that may or may not be receptive to outsiders. Often, poverty and not wealth brings on this sense of humility. The wealthy have a tendency to think that they can go wherever they want and do whatever they please because they have the money to do it, with little regard to the fact that no one invited them.

Also, I give you as a gift a word that I invented with my fellow travelers:

Touron; a combination of a tourist and a moron (all the definitions have been outlined in this thread.) Mindless tourism, often harmful to the local environment, with no regard for local people or place.

This is especially evident in Alaskan cruises. As part of the cruise, they give you a brochure about how much damage the ship is doing to the environment, and they are bragging! Yes, I was happy to have the opportunity to see Alaska on a cruise, but is it really necessary to have that many ships out there diong all that damage?

Good luck with the articles.