Pro Poor Tourism
Pro-poor tourism is a development strategy aimed at alleviating poverty by establishing direct links between the tourism industry and impoverished communities. Originating in the late 1990s in the UK, the concept emphasizes not only generating revenue from tourism but also ensuring that the benefits reach the poorest sectors of society. It seeks to enhance local livelihoods by redirecting existing economic activities, like food production and crafts, toward the tourism market, thus minimizing initial investment costs and improving direct income streams.
While many pilot programs have been implemented, particularly in Africa and South America, the effectiveness of these initiatives has yielded mixed results. Research indicates that pro-poor tourism is most successful in areas with an existing tourist market, but structural challenges, such as inadequate infrastructure, can limit its potential. Critics note that often, the "fairly poor" benefit more than the poorest individuals due to disparities in access to resources, raising concerns about income distribution within communities.
Empirical studies suggest that when done correctly, pro-poor tourism can improve overall community access to education and healthcare, though it remains crucial for stakeholders to consider how tourism revenues are redistributed to ensure equitable benefits for all community members.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Pro Poor Tourism
Pro-poor tourism refers to strategies and development projects that seek to alleviate poverty by creating links between the tourism trade and poor communities. While tourism has historically provided an important source of income to rural and otherwise poor communities in areas with attractive natural resources such as wildlife, mountains, and oceans, pro-poor tourism is a sustainable development strategy that seeks to better organize tourist activities so as to provide more direct revenue to poor families and communities.
The term "pro-poor tourism" was invented in the United Kingdom in the late 1990s, and the concept was based on research projects initiated through the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID). Through the 2000s, several pilot programs in Africa and South America were designed using the principles and general model conceived by researchers contributing to the growing pro-poor tourism movement. Several prominent governmental and nongovernmental development organizations have embraced the concept of pro-poor tourism initiatives, though studies of the effectiveness of existing projects have been limited and have revealed mixed results.
Background
Research on the economics of tourism conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, suggested that, while poor countries with attractive natural features benefited from tourism revenue, this revenue rarely reached the poorest sectors of the population. In 1998, the DFID commissioned a study on tourism and poverty elimination from Professor Harold Goodwin. Goodwin attempted to determine why tourist revenue was not reaching the poorest people in areas with high levels of tourism and to develop strategies for helping to direct revenue toward this sector of the population.
The DFID commissioned consulting firm Deloitte, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) to work together on developing a proposal regarding ways to modify the tourism industry to provide benefits to the poor. The term "pro-poor tourism" was first proposed in the 1999 research report and defined as tourism projects that produce net benefits, or benefits greater than costs, for the poor. In literature on the subject, researchers have been clear to indicate that pro-poor tourism is not intended to be a niche tourism market but rather is intended as a broader practical approach to tourism development using net benefits for the poor as a guiding goal.
Professor Harold Goodwin, Caroline Ashley (director of the DFID Impact Programme), and Dilys Roe were among the primary researchers involved in the original DFID report and have remained primary researchers in the field. Since 1999, Goodwin, Ashley, Roe, and a number of other researchers have been attempting to study the results of applying pro-poor principles to practical tourism projects. In addition to the DFID, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other governmental organizations have funded pro-poor tourism projects.
There is no generalized model for pro-poor tourism projects, and research in the field indicates that each program must be uniquely developed to make use of local resources and potential for development. According to Goodwin, pro-poor tourism projects must simultaneously engage government institutions, private sector businesses, and people within the poor communities. Studies from 2000 to 2014 indicate that pro-poor tourism is most effective in areas where a tourist market already exists. One of the primary strategies in pro-poor tourism is to help poor residents redirect existing livelihoods, such as food or craft production, toward new markets, which limits the need for initial investment and increases direct revenue streams to alleviate poverty. According to the 2024 article "Emerging Poverty with Tourism: Pro-poor Perspective," empirical findings have shown that growth in the tourism industry within an area directly reduces poverty. It improves accessibility, reduces the cost of goods and services, and promotes advances, such as access to education and health facilities. Employing local people as staff benefits the poor and helps the community. For example, according to the 2021 article "Pro-Poor Tourism and Local Practice," the Liannan Yao Autonomous County in China has utilized pro-poor tourism to increase the number of tourists visiting the area, which has generated significant income. It has also created employment for nearly 16,000 people. However, further economic development in the area is hindered by a lack of infrastructure, including roadway capacity. It is difficult to promote tourism in some remote areas, and, in some cases, stakeholders benefit more from pro-poor tourism than the local population.
Impact
Critics of the pro-poor tourism movement have argued that most of the existing projects and literature on the subject overemphasize "net benefits" to the poor, rather than looking specifically at how funds from tourism are distributed. Some studies have shown that the "fairly poor" tend to benefit more than the "poorest" portion of the population because the poorest individuals lack the initial resources to take advantage of emerging tourist revenues. A 2014 study by researcher Jordi Gascón, "Pro-Poor Tourism as a Strategy to Fight Rural Poverty," looks at the tourism industry on the Peruvian island of Amantaní to determine how revenues from tourism were distributed among the population. Gascón argues that Amantaní’s tourism industry meets the requirements to be classified as "pro-poor" because a net gain to the poor was indicated. However, the tourism industry also resulted in increased stratification, with increased wealth, and thus power and influence, going to those who controlled the tourism industry and thus mitigating the benefits accrued by poor through tourism revenue. Gascón believes that the Amantaní case highlights problems with the pro-poor tourism template and argues that responsible tourism initiatives to benefit the poor must take into account how income from the tourism industry is redistributed rather than focusing primarily on net benefits and growth. The article "Emerging Poverty with Tourism: Pro-poor Perspective" points out that employment in tourism is labor-intensive and requires long working hours. This makes it unsuitable for many locals.
Bibliography
Ashley, Caroline. "Methodology for Pro-Poor Tourism Case Studies." Pro-Poor Tourism. Responsible Tourism Partnership, Dec. 2002. Web. 15 Dec. 2014.
Ashley, Caroline, Harold Goodwin, and Dilys Roe. Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: Making Tourism Work for the Poor. London: Overseas Development Inst., 2001. Print.
Colak, Oguz, Vahit Oguz Kiper, and Said Kingir. "Engaging Poverty with Tourism: Pro-poor Perspective." Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Tourism, vol. 8, no. 1, 2023, pp. 93-100, doi.org/10.31822/jomat.2023-8-1-93. Accessed 27 Oct. 2024.
Goodwin, Harold. "Tourism, Local Economic Development, and Poverty Reduction." Applied Research in Economic Development. 5.3 (2008): 55–64. Print.
Dao Truong, V. "Pro-Poor Tourism: Looking Backward as We Move Forward." Tourism Planning & Development 11.2 (2014): 228–242. Print. Gascón, Jordi. "Pro-Poor Tourism as a Strategy to Fight Rural Poverty: A Critique." Journal of Agrarian Change (2014): n. pag. Wiley Online Library. Web. 15 Dec. 2014.
Hall, Colin Michael, ed. Pro-Poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Tonawanda: Channel View, 2007. Print.
Manwa, Haretsebe and Farai Manwa. "Poverty Alleviation through Pro-Poor Tourism: The Role of Botswana Forest Reserves." Sustainability 6.1 (2014): 5697–5713. Print.
Reid, Donald G. Tourism, Globalization, and Development: Responsible Tourism Planning. London: Pluto, 2003. Digital file.
Roe, Dilys, and Penny Urquhart. Pro-Poor Tourism: Harnessing the World’s Largest Industry for the World’s Poor. London: IIED, 2001. Print.
Wen, Shixian, et al. "Pro-Poor Tourism and Local Practices: An Empirical Study of an Autonomous County in China." Sage Journals, 11 June 2021, doi.org/10.1177/21582440211022740. Accessed 27 Oct. 2024.