{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027837921435199506, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007423445716053201, 'mean_word_length': 5.056179775280899, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Small is Beautiful, but Size can be Important

In applying Schumacher’s concept to tourism the issues are less clear-cut than perhaps in other areas. Cost does not always equate with size in the context of tourism, particularly as far as hospitality and food and beverages are concerned. In terms of transportation, however, the basic law of economies of scale generally does apply very much as far as costs are concerned. To reach a destination in a small plane is normally more expensive on a per capita basis than to fly in a “jumbo” jet, and to use mass transportation is generally far more economical, and often less damaging to the environment on the same basis. We need, therefore, when applying Schumacher’s proposal to tourism, to differentiate between the different components of tourism, at least with respect to the levels of travel, accommodation and subsistence, and on-site services and facilities. We should also consider the specific site (resort/development/community), as one could well argue that the same considerations apply in the context of a destination itself. The concept is inextricably tied into other issues already familiar to tourism researchers, one of which is carrying capacity (Butler 2010). It can be argued that size (volume of tourism) itself need not be a problem if demand does not exceed the respective carrying capacities (environmental, physical, social and economic) of the destination. A destination operating beyond any of its capacities can be “ugly” or unattractive irrespective of its absolute size and damage to any or all of its elements can result. Thus, issues such as accessibility, environmental vulnerability, cultural strength, political coherence, and sympathetic governance (expressed in appropriate policy implementation) are all relevant to how size is interpreted in terms of reactions by both tourists and residents to tourism development. As well, as the cliche suggests, ‘Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder’ and a crowded noisy beach resort may be the ideal destination to one segment of the tourist market and anathema to many other segments. Lucas’(1964a, b) and Wagar’s (1964) studies of several decades ago showed clearly that users of an area engaging in different forms of recreation had different tolerance levels for the presence of other people in that area, and that these varied with the activities those others were engaged in. Thus size, expressed in numbers of people, may be a key element for those seeking solitude and/ or quietness, and low numbers (i.e., small) may indeed be not only beautiful but essential to an enjoyable experience. However, a near empty visitor attraction (small numbers of people) might make that destination unattractive to other potential users as well being economically unsustainable to the operators. Thus proponents of Schumacher’s proposal should be careful in linking his concept to that of sustainability as the two ideas are very far apart when one examines them in detail. As has been argued before (Butcher 2003; Butler 1999; Wheeller 1993) smallness does not automatically equate with sustainability, certainly not in terms of economics, one of the three “bottom lines”, and not necessarily in terms of social