The social and environmental impacts on local residents from tourist accommodation near protected areas

The increase in rural accommodation in Longweiba together with growing tourism to Wulingyuan has brought many changes to the lives and livelihoods of local people. Their traditional subsistence farming way of life has largely been replaced by a livelihood model based on the provision of services to tourists, or by moving to other locations to find work (sometimes a considerable distance away). Together, this has resulted in much abandonment of farmland. Some interviewees indicated that the rural accommodation industry has improved local economic development and has provided residents with local employment and business opportunities. This has prompted some young people who had left the village to return home because of these job opportunities or to establish their own small business ventures. However, as mentioned by some interviewees, ‘boutique rural hotels have both positive and negative aspects’. Local people generally experience disadvantage when seeking employment in the tourism industry due to their lower education levels and lack of hospitality training. Boutique rural hotels tend to hire skilled and experienced individuals from outside the region, leaving local people expressing sentiments such as ‘all the money is being earned by outsiders’, and having feelings of exclusion and a lack of fairness. Furthermore, those residents who provide tourism services (such as being a local guide) generally perceive that boutique rural hotels have negatively impacted their livelihoods. This is because, in comparison to regular B&Bs that only provide accommodation, the boutique rural hotels usually provide almost all the services tourists utilize, including food and refreshments, guides, transportation and drivers. This forces local people to work under contract to the boutique rural hotels, which tends to be on less favorable terms than if they would be working for themselves. Some residents, especially those who don’t provide tourism services, stated that they haven’t received any benefits from tourism, and that the accommodation providers are the only ones making money out of tourism, which happens at the expense of local people, especially because tourism has led to local inflation and other social impacts.

Many traditional activities of the local Tujia ethnic group are no longer being practiced (at least not to the same extent) (Li et al. 2023). For instance, tourism has prompted local people to learn and use Mandarin Chinese more extensively, while the Tujia language and local dialects have been neglected, especially by the younger generations. Additionally, certain practices related to natural resources, such as collecting wild plants and hunting, have been prohibited by the Wulingyuan Management Agency. Nevertheless, to increase the potential for ethnic tourism in the village, some accommodation providers have initiated various actions to preserve traditional culture and architecture. For example, one boutique rural hotel invests in the renovation of local traditional dwellings in order to showcase Tujia architecture to tourists. Also, boutique rural hotels may offer experiential activities for tourists seeking to engage in making local traditional handicrafts, such as brocade weaving and pyrography (an art form and craft that etches a design onto wood or other materials by burning). These activities generally enable local artisans to earn income by selling their products. However, this potentially leads to the commodification of artefacts and culture, which also has various negative social impacts (Shepherd 2002; Vanclay 2002; Cole 2007; Richards 2011), but also arguably facilitates the protection and continuation of cultural practices (Li et al. 2023).

Rural tourism has led to improvements in local infrastructure, including new roads, footpaths, open spaces, observation decks, etc. The government has attempted to maintain the integrity of the local architectural style by imposing various restrictions on local dwellings, aiming to create a more picturesque rural landscape. Furthermore, some public services have improved, with the roads being swept and garbage collected regularly. These changes have enhanced the living environment and have been praised by many local people. However, these changes have also attracted much criticism. Firstly, the construction of some public facilities has been on land allocated to local residents, and they have not received fair compensation for the lost use of this land. The requirement for a uniform architectural style has caused discontent amongst some residents because, although the regulation was established after their houses were built or renovated, they were forced to remove anything that did not comply with the prescribed style. Many villagers considered that ‘the government should have planned ahead’ and consulted villagers in advance about the new regulations.

The increasing number of rural accommodation providers and tourists has led to a significant increase in water consumption. As Longweiba relies on spring water, this increased water usage has resulted in water supply difficulties, particularly during summer (the dry season and when there is more visitors). During the fieldwork for this research, due to the drought at the time, at considerable cost and effort, the local government had to transport truckloads of water daily approximately 20 kms to Longweiba. Furthermore, the increase in sewage from the additional numbers of people has resulted in environmental pollution, especially because there is no centralized sewage treatment system in Longweiba. One interviewee stated that ‘the septic tanks already stink, what will it be like in the future, with more people? Sewage treatment will certainly be inadequate if there is no investment in better services’. The sewage issue is a major concern for all local people, with one stating that ‘if this issue is not resolved soon, we will all have to be relocated’. Some rural accommodation providers discharge their toilet and non-toilet wastewater into ponds, onto farmland, or even into creeks upstream from where other households extract water, leading to complaints and conflict. The problem has not yet been resolved, leading to many residents feeling powerless, saying: ‘What can we do? They [the hoteliers] are all influential people, and we can’t afford to provoke them’.

The boutique rural hotels in Longweiba sometimes host television shows or important official meetings. During such occasions, certain categories of residents, such as communist party members, rangers and village committee workers, are usually required by the village committee to assist (beyond their normal duties) in cleaning-up public areas, leading to complaints such as, ‘we perform cleaning services, help the accommodation providers get guests, and make money for them, but we receive nothing in return’.

Most local people referred to tourists as ‘guests’, and all people we interviewed welcomed tourists because of the view that ‘money comes with guests’. The relationship between tourists and local residents was generally good, with only two interviewees mentioning conflicts with tourists, which were due to issues such as tourists trampling on vegetable gardens or inappropriately picking fruit and vegetables without permission. Although local people were aware that rural accommodation can bring some negative social impacts, the majority of local residents had an optimistic attitude about the future of tourism and the tourist accommodation development in Longweiba. They believed that, with the support of government policies, the tourism industry will become more thriving and more sustainable and would provide opportunities for local people to also benefit.

Rural tourism development has triggered significant criticism of local governance and how various government policies have been implemented. The ability to construct and renovate buildings is essential for a viable and vibrant rural accommodation industry, but the strictness of the requirements (especially how it affected people inside the gate at Longweiba) were criticized by many interviewees. A common complaint was the difficulty in obtaining building permits, and the length of time it took to get a permit. One interviewee had to wait for more than a decade to gain permission. Others have applied for permission multiple times, with their requests generally refused. This has created various issues, especially the deteriorating quality of housing, which was a grievance mentioned by many interviewees.

The frequent changes and inconsistency of policies were other issues our interviewees mentioned. Due to the requirements for conservation of the local environment and the possibility that local people might be resettled, prior to 2014, people in Longweiba were not allowed to build new houses or undertake renovation, leading to complaints from many villagers, some of whom had to remain living in old dilapidated houses that did not meet contemporary expectations. However, for people living outside the gate, it was possible to renovate, with some ‘not even having to get an official permit’. Various interviewees mentioned words to the effect that, in 2011 many people living outside the gate were building houses and ‘the local government didn’t control it’. Subsequently, with the Beautiful Countryside and Rural Revitalization policies, construction and renovations of buildings became officially possible, and several buildings were built in 2019. However, this window of permission was short-lived. In 2020, the government again tightened the building regulations, strictly enforcing restrictions on building area and number of floors, with the requirement that the size of houses should not exceed 130 square meters per floor and be no more than two floors high. These specifications did not cater for the needs of farmers, who require considerably more space to store their agricultural equipment. The requirements had the effect of discouraging villagers from renovating due to the belief that, if they renovated their house, this might ultimately result in a smaller living space because they would then have to comply with all the rules including the space restrictions (that they perhaps currently exceeded). Moreover, the constantly changing policies have led local people to question whether their rights and procedural fairness were being respected. One person stated that: ‘some houses have a larger area than permitted, while others are not allowed to exceed the rules even by a small fraction’. Some interviewees expressed the importance of having connections with the officials. There was a perception that ‘without appropriate connections to the village leaders, one cannot get permission to renovate’. They thought this was unfair and improper.

All interviewees living inside the entry gate complained about the housing policies, as it became extremely difficult for them to renovate their house or build anything. An official permit is needed for changes to a house, and all construction materials have to be transported through the gate, which is guarded, so it would be impossible to do such work surreptitiously. Also, the Wulingyuan Management Agency regularly patrols the residential area inside the gate to ensure there is no illegal construction activity.

Before 2020, local people inside the gate were only allowed to have a single-storey house, while those outside the gate could build two-storey houses. A resident living inside the gate said, “this mountainous area is extremely damp, and it is impossible to live in a single-storey house because the walls become completely moldy” making the house uninhabitable. Furthermore, the process of getting permission for renovation or reconstruction of houses was much stricter for residents living inside the gate, with few applications being approved before 2020. The inequality in the rules (between inside and outside the gate) has resulted in severe dissatisfaction among residents, especially those inside the gate, who thought that ‘since the government does not relocate us, we should be allowed to build houses to sustain our livelihoods’. After 2020, it did become possible for residents living inside the gate to renovate their house. However, for various reasons including bureaucratic complexity, only a few people actually did make changes.

Although (at various points in time) the central and local governments have actively promoted rural tourism in Longweiba and throughout China, only the residential areas outside the controlled area have benefited, and the residential areas within the controlled area have not been able to establish tourism facilities. Government investments are primarily directed only towards the development of the residential areas outside the controlled area, resulting in two completely different worlds within the same village: one (outside) characterized as a ‘prosperous world’, and the other (inside) as a ‘traditional village’. The sentiments of the residents inside the controlled area were that ‘we are not allowed to do anything’ and ‘we have been abandoned’. The situation of ‘one village, two policies’ had in fact already existed for 20 years or more, but the recent development of rural accommodation outside the gate has intensified the inequality being experienced. Residents outside the controlled area have more economic opportunities, and some ‘only needed to rent out their houses without doing any work and yet they still earn an annual income’. The perceived inequality has heightened the feeling of ‘lack of fairness’ among residents inside the controlled area, negatively affecting social cohesion in Longweiba, and intensifying conflict between residents inside and outside the gate.

Although tourism in Longweiba has been developing rapidly, an official development plan has not yet been prepared. One villager expressed the view that:

“If, in the past, the government had provided the right direction, such as how to construct rural accommodation, and been clearer, the current situation would be different. Right now, our house is constructed in a certain style, while the neighbor’s house is constructed in another style, simply due to the lack of planning. If the government would have had a plan from the beginning, it would have been better now. Not only for the aesthetics, but all aspects of the village would have been much better.”

Inadequate planning has resulted in the disorderly appearance of the village, which is manifested in the varying architectural styles of the buildings, as well as in inadequate water supply and sewage treatment, which will be an increasing problem with more tourism. The lack of planning has given rise to a sense of uncertainty and insecurity among residents and accommodation providers, who perceive the local government’s stance on tourism to be ambiguous. Therefore, they worry that, at some time in the future, they might have to desist in their tourism activities and/or be forcibly resettled, thus losing any investment they might have made in these activities.