United States Tourism and Its Effects on Department of Agriculture Southeast Alaska Communities Forest Service and Resources: Case Studies Pacific Northwest Research Station From Haines, Craig, and Research Paper PNW-RP-566 July 2005 Hoonah, Alaska Lee K. Cerveny The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, w a t e r, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’sTARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14thand independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDAis an equal opportunity provider and employer. USDAis committed to making its information materials accessible to all USDAcustomers and employees. Authors Lee K. Cervenyis a research social scientist, Human and Natural Resources Interactions Program, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34thStreet, Seattle, WA98103. Cover photographs by Tina Pedesen (dancers), Alexei Krasnoselsky (totem) and Lee Cerveny. Tourism and Its Effects on Southeast Alaska Communities and Resources: Case Studies from Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska Abstract Cerveny, Lee K. 2005.Tourism and its effects on southeast Alaska communities and resources: case studies from Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-566. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 147 p. Tourism has become integral to southeast Alaska’s regional economy and has resulted in changes to the social and cultural fabric of community life as well as to natural resources used by Alaskans. This study incorporates an ethnographic approach to trace tourism development in three rural southeast Alaska communities featuring different levels and types of tourism. In addition, the effects of tourism from the perspectives of local residents are explored, including economic effects, sociocultural effects, and effects on human uses of natural resources. Keywords: Tourism, community effects, social sciences, anthropology,Alaska. i RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-566 Summary Tourism has become integral to the economy of southeast Alaska and has resulted in changes to the social and cultural fabric of community life as well as to natural resources used by Alaskans. This study examines tourism development in Haines, Craig, and Hoonah and is based on field research conducted between 2000 and 2001 and followup research through 2004. In each site, data were collected through indepth interviews with key informants and a representative sample of community residents. These three communities were selected as case studies because they represent the range of tourism experiences occurring in southeast Alaska. The communities selected are of similar size, demographic composition, and economic structure, with historical reliance on timber and fishing. Despite these similarities, tourism has developed along very different paths. Moreover, the perceived effects of tourism on community life and the surrounding natural resources have also differed. th Tourism to southeast Alaska grew rapidly in the late 20 century, with the number of visitors doubling from 473,000 in 1985 to nearly 700,000 in 2001 (McDowell Group 2002). (By 2004, this number had exceeded 900,000.) By 2001, cruise passengers accounted for 75 percent of visitors to southeast Alaska. To meet surging demand, cruise lines expanded their capacity by increasing the size and quantity of ships. Larger ships have meant larger impacts, both to the environment and to host communities. Other forms of tourism in southeast Alaska include pack- aged tourism and independent travelers. In 2001, more than 188,000 visitors par- ticipated in guided commercial tours in the Tongass National Forest. Between 1982 and 2001, the number of charter fishing boats in southeast Alaska swelled from 139 to 1,343. As charter fishing grows in popularity, charter fishing guests increasingly compete with commercial fishers for salmon and halibut. Independent travelers are those who plan their own itineraries and rely to a greater extent on local accommo- dations and visitor services. They may fly to Juneau and then visit the region by ferry, or sail to southeast Alaska on their own vessel and stop in at port cities for supplies as they sightsee and fish. It has been estimated that the number of inde- pendent travelers to southeast Alaska has declined in the last 10 years. Tourism growth has created new opportunities for communities struggling for survival as resource extraction industries decline. Many workers who lost their timber industry jobs turned to tourism for economic survival. Commercial fisher- men also have turned to charter fishing to supplement their income amidst declines ii Tourism and Its Effects on Southeast Alaska Communities and Resources: Case Studies from Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska in fish prices. Yet, with renewed economic vigor come other unwanted and un- planned social consequences and impacts to the surrounding environment. T h i s study explores the effects of tourism development on the economy, the culture, and human uses of natural resources through the perspective of local residents in H a i n e s ,Craig, and Hoonah. Haines is located on the main tourism corridor in the region, and cruise-based tourism grew rapidly there through 2000. Craig is more remote and has cultivated a tourism industry based on charter fishing. Hoonah is also located on the main cruise ship corridor.At the beginning of this study, Hoonah had not developed a tourism infrastructure. However, the development of a cruise destination in Hoonah in 2004 portends important changes to community life. These three case studies illustrate the variety of experiences faced by southeast Alaska communities involved with tourism. Haines leaders invited large cruise ships into their community and experienced a significant growth in business activity as well as an increased eco- nomic dependence on the cruise industry between 1994 and 2000. Consequently, when the cruise lines altered their itineraries in 2001 and docked less frequently in Haines, the local economy suffered. Tourism in Craig was largely based on con- sumptive activities, fishing and hunting, with potential to expand into nonconsump- tive tourism, such as wildlife viewing and cultural tourism. Local and nonlocal entrepreneurs led the tourism industry in Craig with little proactive involvement by public agencies. Meanwhile, Hoonah residents and city leaders were initially cautious about tourism development, and the community mainly attracted independ- ent hunters, boaters, and anglers. However, the cruise destination created by Hoonah’s village corporation in partnership with the cruise lines and cooperation from the tribal government has radically transformed the tourism landscape. Visitor volume and visibility differed significantly among the three study com- munities. The more visitors appearing in town, the more opportunities there were for visitor-resident interactions in the shops, streets, or favorite recreational areas. Cruise visitors to Haines were highly visible because they arrived in volumes that exceeded the population, and because their activities were confined to specific areas. In Craig, visitor volume was moderate, with roughly 4,000 to 6,000 visitors a n n u a l l y, most of whom were associated with fishing lodges. Visitors to Craig were far less visible, as most of their time was spent fishing or relaxing in the lodge. Visitor volume to Hoonah was modest in 2001, with pleasure travelers likely num- bering fewer than 2,000. Although visitors were few, they were highly visible because of the compact nature of downtown. The arrival of thousands of cruise passengers in 2004 brought new opportunities for resident-visitor interaction. iii RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-566 Economic Effects The three study communities have approached tourism at different rates and wel- comed tourism growth to different degrees. In communities with higher visitor volume, residents were more likely to observe additional economic benefits, such as new business growth, tax contributions, and the secondary effects of tourist spending. Tourism dollars filtered through the local economies with direct and indirect spending. Nearly everyone interviewed agreed that tourism led to job cre- ation and allowed many displaced timber workers and fishermen to continue work- ing and living in their home communities. Tourism provided a range of employment opportunities for both residents and seasonal workers; however, many of these jobs tended to be low-wage positions without benefits or advancement opportunities. Few families relied on tourism as a sole source of year-round income. Tourism also allowed existing business to grow and contributed to new business growth. Four emerging trends in business ownership are noteworthy. 1.Respondents in all three communities expressed concern that outside corpora- tions would eventually dominate the local tourism scene. At the time of this study, locally owned enterprises were most prevalent, but in more developed cruise ports, there was a tendency toward increased outside investment. Corporate decisions by the international cruise corporations to change the number of dockings in a community had penetrating repercussions through- out the local economy. 2.Native corporations created as a result of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act had invested significantly in tourism. These investments resulted in jobs and potential dividends for corporation shareholders. A l t h o u g h there was some debate among residents about whether these corporations made decisions that extended benefits community-wide, most agreed that their involvement in tourism was a positive step toward asserting local control of tourism development. 3.There was an expansion in capacity of many tourism businesses with local roots. Some respondents worried that if current business owners sold their businesses, there would be a great likelihood that nonlocal entrepreneurs would assume ownership; few local residents would be in a position to afford the enterprise. Many respondents worried that the next generation of business owners might not share the same sense of commitment to the community. iv Tourism and Its Effects on Southeast Alaska Communities and Resources: Case Studies from Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska 4. Anumber of business owners in Haines, Craig, and Hoonah adopted seasonal residence patterns. Residents were concerned about the growing trend toward seasonal business owners, who spend a portion of their earnings outside the community and who may not be as committed to local economic growth as year-round residents might be. Sociocultural Effects Tourism development also fostered concerns about changes in the character of community life, including the pace of life, the tendency toward commercialization, and the integrity of cultural traditions and practices. Many respondents enjoyed the opportunity to talk with new people and exchange ideas. However, others disliked the presence of so many strangers in town. Some associated the influx of visitors with a reduced sense of safety and security. Residents sometimes felt that their lives and routines had become part of a performance geared to visitors. Other observable changes to community life included the change in merchandise carried in local stores. Tourism affected each community differently; some of the sociocultural impacts are summarized below. 1. In Haines, where visitor volume was highest, residents described a wide variety of changes associated with tourism, most notably: congestion in town, the quickened pace of life, growing commercialism, and social frictions among key stakeholders. Craig residents did not comment extensively on the socio- cultural effects of tourism, possibly owing to their limited interaction with visitors. Although tourist volume was low in Hoonah, the sociocultural effects observed were more significant, because of the compact nature of downtown and local attitudes toward strangers. 2. Residents of host communities typically perceived the seasonal tourism work- force as a separate subpopulation of the community. Often the seasonal work- force was assumed to have different values, habits, priorities, and levels of commitment to the community than other residents. Afew residents in each site felt that this social group represented a shift in traditional Alaskan values and lifeways. 3. Tribal officials in each community stressed the importance of protecting cul- tural resources and traditions from exploitation by outsiders. Yet many saw benefits in promoting the sharing and learning of cultural traditions through tourism, resulting in the need for young people to learn stories, songs, dances, v RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-566 and aesthetic traditions. Some residents hoped that today’s tourists would become tomorrow’s supporters for resources and needs of Native people. 4. Tourism impacted some neighborhoods more than others. In Haines, tourism providers expanded into new geographic areas to avoid other tour groups and to offer guests diverse venues. This dispersal of tourism increased the fre- quency of visitor-resident interactions in rural neighborhoods and remote recreation places. The increasing frequency of these interactions took a toll on residents, who found fewer places and times to avoid visitors. Residents in the downtown areas were more likely to speak out about the problems associated with tourism. 5. Vocal groups in each study site raised important issues about the effects of tourism and the need to protect important community attributes. In Haines, citizens organized against a tourism development at Glacier Point and the increase in overhead flights from airplanes. In Craig, fishermen warned about the implications of an uncontrolled charter fleet. In Hoonah, clan elders cau- tioned tourism officials about the need to protect cultural resources and com- munity life. The reactions of various stakeholders to tourism growth shaped the nature and pace of tourism in each site. Resource Effects The overall increase in visitor volume to southeast Alaska has resulted in a subse- quent escalation in the frequency and intensity of use of natural areas with special scenic qualities or wildlife viewing opportunities. Tourism providers have expanded into new sites to provide visitors with a unique Alaska experience. Tour operators rely on new transportation options to allow access to previously remote areas. T h e s e trends affect the way southeast Alaskans interact with these same resources. Several themes emerged in the analysis of resource effects. 1. The emphasis on consumptive tourism (hunting and fishing) caused many residents of the study communities to worry about the long-term resource sus- tainability.The rapid growth in charter fishing activity was viewed as a threat to those relying on fish for their livelihood or personal consumption. Accord- ing to local fishermen, the increase in charter activity has caused them to shift their harvest patterns of salmon and halibut. These shifts evoked local conver- sations about entitlement to Alaska’s resources and the desire for local protec- tions. vi Tourism and Its Effects on Southeast Alaska Communities and Resources: Case Studies from Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska 2. The expansion of tourist activity into more remote areas meant that Alaskans using these areas for subsistence harvest had to share these spaces with visitors. Although tourism had not impeded access to subsistence resources to a great extent, some active subsistence users wondered about the quality and integrity of these resources, given cruise ship pollution. Because subsistence is con- sidered both an economic activity and a cultural practice, changes in subsis- tence patterns will provoke discussion. 3. Tourism resulted in shifted patterns of local recreation use. Residents fre- quently reported that they had curbed their use of some high-volume areas and shifted to less desirable sites to escape tourists. Those who continued to use these high-volume areas reported a diminished experience. In some cases, the development of tourism facilities in remote areas resulted in the perceived loss of natural spaces and the encroachment of civilization into the natural realm. 4. Some residents resented the commoditization of natural spaces, namely the packaging, marketing, and sale of “developed wilderness” to visitors. In Haines, a local kayak destination and a goat-hunting ground became a “wild- erness safari” tour.The imposition of the tourist landscape, with an entirely new set of definitions and activities, onto these natural areas conflicted with use and perception of these spaces by local residents. 5. The expansion and proliferation of tourism providers throughout the region resulted in user conflicts (a) among tour operators with different group sizes, (b) among tour operators engaged in different types of activities (e.g., whale- watching, fishing, bear hunting), and (c) operators using different means of transportation. Public agencies are beginning to apply tools for establishing optimal carrying capacity of recreation sites. The expansion and proliferation of nature-based tourism providers had implica- t i o n sfor public land and resource managers, who saw increases in permit activity by commercial providers. State and federal agencies overseeing fish and game activities saw an increase in license requests and harvest levels. In some cases, public agencies were not equipped to manage the changes experienced. Resource managers often lacked capacity to monitor recreation activity over vast areas or to regulate commercial recreation use. Some regulations and policies for resource vii RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-566 management were based on outdated assumptions. The heterogeneous nature of tourism makes the industry more difficult to manage than previous resource-based industries, such as timber, and requires new tools and expertise. Management Considerations Study results suggest a variety of implications for resource managers. 1. The economic benefits of tourism could outweigh the costs associated with the industry for many more people if local workers were trained and employed and local households directly benefited from the industry. Providing opportunities for year-round employment and training for entry-level and middle-manage- ment positions in the local tourism industry might encourage the disbursement of economic benefits throughout the community. 2. The desire for local control over the process of tourism development echoed throughout each of the research sites. Large-scale tourism growth typically was sparked by private corporations and nonlocal actors with little public involvement or planning at the outset. Communities were forced to react to shifts in the use of public spaces and local resources. Residents sought greater control over the pace of tourism development, the type of tourism being pursued, and the process of managing tourism growth. 3. Understanding that the benefits and costs of local tourism may not be evenly distributed within the community enables community leaders to develop mechanisms that minimize any undesirable effects associated with the industry as perceived by various stakeholders and social groups. 4. Research has shown that involving stakeholders during the planning process promotes social equity and maximizes local control over tourism development. Local planning efforts that are initiated and supported in a proactive fashion so as to influence and shape future tourism developments, rather than reacting to existing problems, will likely be more satisfying to those involved. Some stakeholders may need extra assistance from state and federal agencies to be effectively involved. 5. Resource management agencies at the federal and state levels may consider ways to cooperate, to ensure that tourism growth does not outpace capacity to manage this growth. Agencies can strive to improve awareness of their own policies and programs as they affect tourism, and how these programs complement the efforts of other agencies. Coordination among governmental viii