Among the middle classes, it has become a habit, indeed almost a social obligation, to go for a vacation by the sea. After World War II, the domestic tourism industry expanded parallel to the rising welfare of the middle class in developed countries. From the 1980s onward, tourism became a huge industry on a global scale.
According to a 2014 report by United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), from 1950 through 2013, the number of international tourists exploded from 25 million to 1,087 million and that of domestic tourists reached 6 billion (The number of tourists is calculated as the total number of travels in a year). The number of international tourists is expected to reach 1.8 billion by 2030. According to UNWTO, in 2013, tourism accounted for 9% of global GDP and 9% of global employment. In 2012, 260 million people worked in the sector worldwide.
The tourism industry is based on sales: It sells services and “beautiful landscapes.” To put otherwise, it exploits labor and industry. To this end, it has an impact in two sectors: construction and transport. Accordingly, it requires the production of various goods such as textiles, gifts, cement and energy. On top of the huge scale of this production, the total number of domestic and international tourists (or rather the total number of travels) has reached a whopping 7 billion in 2013! Let us give a single example for the ecological destruction that tourism entails: In international tourism, air travel accounts for 53% (371 million) and land travel (except railways) accounts for 40% (280 million) of all travel: The resulting carbon emission is huge.
The International Labor Organization depicts tourism as an industry where employment is illicit, temporary or short (frequently seasonal), irregular; work hours are long and tiresome, and pay is low. In addition, living conditions change so dramatically in touristic cities that sometimes locals can no longer sustain their livelihood. This situation is also dubbed the Venice syndrome, since that city is the main case in point. Due to the urban rent created by tourism, house prices have skyrocketed in the city, and as all services became oriented towards foreign tourists, many locals can no longer make ends meet. The local population of Venice has fallen from 200 to 50 thousand in two decades, and some expect it to fall to zero by 2030.
In reaction to this ecological and social destruction, we have seen the appearance of “eco-tourism” which focuses on agricultural tourism, outdoor sports, etc. The prefix “eco-” makes this sector look innocent, however, let us remember that the island Mallorca is visited annually by 10 million Europeans for cycling. One cannot but ask “What is eco- about it at all?”
Tourism in Turkey from 1970s to date
It was in the 1970s that the Turkish tourism industry started to develop. Back then, the sector was mostly based on small, family-owned B&Bs. From 1970s onwards, however, summer houses (also called second residences) constructed by housing coops started to wreak havoc in coastal areas. This development can be attributed on the one hand to the new demand by the middle class which enjoyed higher incomes and started to go on vacation more frequently; and on the other, to the construction sector which shifted its focus to coastal areas after its growth in large city centers slowed down. Plus, many Turkish workers who had emigrated to Germany for employment invested their remittances in summer houses back in Turkey. According to data by the official statistical agency TÜİK, as of 2000, summer houses (or second residences) account for 8% (464 thousand) of the 5.8 million housing units constructed each year in Turkey. A study carried out by Kunter Manisa and Tülin Görgülü in the Mediterranean and Aegean regions suggests that, in these areas, 85% of summer houses are used only once a year, and 62% are used for two months or less.
In the second half of the 1980s, many large firms based in various sectors stepped into tourism and construction. The Law for Supporting Tourism passed in 1982 played an important role in this shift. The said law introduced advantageous loan conditions and other measures to speed up the growth of tourism which up until then could not make much progress due to natural protection laws and the slow pace of state planning. The legislation defined three types of touristic space, namely touristic regions, touristic areas and touristic centers. (An amendment in 2003 added the “cultural and touristic regions for protection and development”). The said categories are determined and announced by the Council of Ministers. This allows governments to overcome the limits imposed on construction by laws to protect forests and agricultural areas.
“From 1982 when the Law for Supporting Tourism came into effect until 2006, the touristic regions, areas and centers, as well as the cultural and touristic regions for protection and development spanning along the coastline from Çanakkale until Mersin reached a total bed capacity of over one million through various environmental reorganization plans, and certificates were issued for an additional bed capacity of 500,000. In the said period, one out of three of these beds fell on allocated plots.” In brief, the Law for Supporting Tourism is among the main culprits behind the invasion of coasts and forests by five-star hotels from the 1980s onwards.
According to the Tourism Strategy Action Plan (2007-2013) issued by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Turkish tourism industry grew by an annual 15% versus a worldwide average of 6.8% from 1985 to 2005. The plan sets targets such as a bed capacity of 1.5 million, over 40 million tourists and an income of 50 billion dollars from foreign tourists. In addition, the plan mentions nine more culture and tourism development areas, seven tourism development corridors, ten touristic cities, eleven cruiser ports, nine yacht ports, twenty seven fishing ports, a new airport, and new railways and highways. As such, the plan boils down to more and more ecological destruction.
Construction along the coastline
Coastal areas are especially important for the development of tourism. On the one hand, legislation is issued to protect these areas, and on the other, such protective limitations are relaxed or even eradicated in order to realize their “tourism potential”. Due to this contradiction, 26 amendments were made to the legislation about the coastline from 1926 until 2007.
The Constitution's Article 43 states that the coasts are under the control of the state, and that the shores of seas, lakes and rivers must be used for the public good. The Civil Code of 1926 also states that the coasts are open to the public and are public property.
In 1972, a special legislation issued on coastal areas stated that a certain zone from the coastline inwards was to be dedicated for public use. However the exact distance concerned and the activities allowed inside that zone were revised many times. Some of these revisions were protective of the coasts, whereas others opened the door to construction and private use.
Datça as an example of touristic destruction
Located in the southern Anatolian province of Muğla, Datça is a district with an economy based on agriculture and tourism, and harbors natural and historical reserve areas. In 2012, Muğla was declared a metropolitan municipality. As a result, Datça came under the umbrella of Muğla Metropolitan Municipality and the Datça Municipality came to control the entire district, not only the town center. According to 2013 data, Datça town center had a population of 11,651 and the villages had a population of 6,332, totaling 17,983. Although some locals emigrate from the district, its overall population has continued to rise because of tourism and reverse migration from the large cities since the 1990s.
Due to difficulty of access, Datça remained isolated for long years. It was only after the construction of a highway in the 1970s that a number of services became available. That is one reason why Datça has been better preserved than Marmaris or Bodrum. It became more popular from the mid-1990s onwards, and tourism intensified in the 2000s. One can speak of planned development within the area controlled by the municipality. However, this planning effort could not prevent the town's sprawl toward the mountains and agricultural land, since the coastal zone is fairly narrow. The town center harbors numerous summer houses divided into projects. According to the Datça-Bozburun Environmental Plan Research Report, there are around 6,500 such secondary houses within the boundaries of the plan. Many of these summer houses are now also used during winter as their inhabitants settle down in Datça after retirement.
One key criticism aimed at the Datça-Bozburun Environmental Plan is that it allows for development in the bays around Datça. There are 52 such bays in the area, small and large. There is no development, let alone roads around a majority of these. The plan has allowed for the construction of accommodation facilities as well as restaurants, cafes and outdoor sports areas in some the bays classified as natural reserves. Furthermore, individual landholders were given the right to construct buildings on their plots in forests, groves and other important natural sites. Since these areas constitute 80% of the plan area, most of the natural reserves will not be protected since they include plots held by private individuals.
In the relatively developed bays of Palamutbükü and Mesudiye, the plan requires touristic facilities to obtain tourism certificates and defines minimum development zones which are larger than the current areas, which suggest that the plots will soon change hands and the small B&Bs will be replaced by large hotels. As such, the locals who engage in agriculture during winter and touristic activities in summer will turn into employees of the tourism sector.
Just as in large cities, gentrification is also visible in touristic cities. Today the number of migrants to Datça has surpassed the population of locals. In a study on another gentrified town, Alaçatı, it is indicated that “the locals had to migrate from the city center to new developments on the outskirts of the city and saw their coast of living rise not only in economic but also social terms.”
The Datça-Bozburun plan also touches upon agro-tourism, and defines it as follows: “Meant to provide additional income to small farmers, agricultural tourism is based on activities such as visits to agricultural production areas including vineyards, orchards, fields, stalls, coops etc. and traditional food processing facilities, participation in farm work, overnight stays in farmhouses, entertainment, shopping and workshops.” Villages and environs are designated as the areas where agro-tourism is to develop and recently there has been rampant development in such places.
One of the most controversial aspects of the plan is a marina to be built in Bağlarözü. Bağlarözü is a bay without any development, since it is very close to the ruins of the ancient city of Knidos and thus falls within a first category archeological reserve. There is a pier inside the Knidos ancient city; however, it is argued that it no longer meets the demand and that a new port should be built. The elimination of the pier would be beneficial for the protection of the site, however the construction of a port in Bağlarözü is set to trigger more development. According to the plan, piers are to be built in many bays around Datça, which could pave the ground to more yacht tourism and the subsequent destruction of nature.
What do locals want?
For years there were no plans covering Datça, because of the inability of governments to establish a well functioning planing system and the ineffciency of the institutions meant to draw the plans. The main concern which haunts the locals in Datça is the fate of their B&Bs, restaurants and other small commercial business which have had no legal status in the last twenty years due to the lack of a proper plan. They want to protect their forests, sea, and historical legacy, but also their homes and businesses.
It seems that the tourism industry will continue to be centered on small B&Bs, aparthotels and boutique hotels in Datça. While some of the locals are against the advent of large hotel chains, some are in favor of the development of more intensive and lucrative tourism. Datça harbors a large young population who can find no agricultural work or lack land, and the youth unemployment rate is high. As such they demand new employment opportunities. Most locals still have a connection to agriculture, as they engage in tourism during summer and go back to agriculture to produce almonds, olives and honey during winter. Consequently, they demand support for agriculture, too.
The locals want to make ends meet. However, most do not favor rampant development. They are cognizant that their tourism income depends on the natural beauty of the landscape and so demand protection for the sea and forests. They want water treatment systems, drinkable water and fire-fighting infrastructure.
It seems that tourism will increasingly replace agriculture in Datça. If tourism grows rapidly, this will result in more tourists, more businesses, more pollution and destruction. Furthermore, this development will not make the locals richer. Labor exploitation is intensive in tourism, and as the scale increases the number of workers and their wages go down. Once agriculture substitutes tourism, even in its agro- or eco-tourism variants, capitalist relations of production become the norm. As a result, coasts and forests are protected only on paper, archeological reserves are preserved only as a tourist attraction, and rural and agricultural culture is turned into its own caricature for marketing purposes. Can this problem be overcome by reviving agriculture, deploying natural agricultural methods, and organizing small farmers? It will take a drawn-out struggle to resolve the tense conflict between tourism and ecology.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sources
Kurtuluş, Hatice, (2011), Mübadeleyle Giden Rumlar Turizmle Gelen Avrupalılar, Bağlam yayınları, İstanbul.
TC. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, (2014), Datça-Bozburun Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesine Ait 1/25.000 Ölçekli Çevre Düzeni Planı Revizyonu Planı Araştırma Raporu.
TC. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, (2014), Datça-Bozburun Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesine Ait 1/25.000 Ölçekli Çevre Düzeni Planı Revizyonu Planı Açıklama Raporu.
Töre, Evrim Özkan; Eren Özdemir, Zeynep; Çevik, Gülay; Korkmaz, Zeynep, Gökdemir, Mine, (2010), “İkinci Konut Turizminin Çevresel Etkileri: Trakya Kıyıları Örneği”, Kentleri Korumak savunmak, 8 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü 33. Kolokyumu, TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası, Ankara.
Doğmuş, Oytun Eylem, (2010), “Turizmin Antalya’ya Kaybettirdikleri: Bellek Üzerine Mekânsal Bir İnceleme”, Kentleri Korumak savunmak, 8 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü 33. Kolokyumu, TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası, Ankara.
Meşhur, Mehmet Çağlar; Serdaroğlu Sağ, Neslihan; Levend, Sinan, (2010), “Kıyılar Ve Orman Alanlarını Korumak/ Savunmak: Kısmi Yapılaşmanın Kıyıları”, Kentleri Korumak savunmak, 8 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü 33. Kolokyumu, TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası, Ankara.
Tezcan, Ayhan Melih; Penbecioğlu, Mehmet, (2010), “Neoliberal Kentleşme Süreci Ve Kıyı Kentlerinde Mutenalaşma: Alaçatı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Kentleri Korumak savunmak, 8 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü 33. Kolokyumu, TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası, Ankara.
--------------------------------------------------------
2 Kurtuluş, 2011, p.105.
3 Töre, et al. 2010, p. 535
4 Doğmuş, 2010, p. 493
5 Meşhur et al., 2010, s. 550
6 Tezcan, Penpecioğlu, 2007, p. 514