Pro-poor tourism: benefiting the poor.

Abstract

This chapter reviews the impacts of tourism on the poor, outlines the concept of pro-poor tourism (PPT) and reviews recent experience of implementing a variety of strategies aimed at making tourism more pro-poor in several developing countries (South Africa, Ecuador, Namibia, Uganda, Nepal, and St Lucia). The case studies demonstrate that overall the impact of PPT strategies is positive. The chapter concludes by outlining a few constrains to PPT that need to be addressed, as well as several lessons on 'good practice'.

Tourism in urban Africa: The South African experience

“…Over the last five years, one of the most vibrant themes in South African tourism research relates to what has been termed 'pro-poor tourism' which is anchored on maximising the potential and increasing the net benefits of tourism development for the poor (Visser and Rogerson, 2004). Currently, South Africa is both a leader and laboratory for the development of pro-poor tourism in the South (Ashley and Ntshona, 2002;Ashley and Roe, 2002;Mahony and van Zyl, 2002;Spenceley and Seif, 2003;Roe et al, 2004). It is significant, however, that the prime focus of existing pro-poor tourism scholarship has been in rural areas and upon South Africa's traditional nature-based attractions.…”

Assessing Pro-Poor Tourism principles in practice: Ethnic tourism in northern Thailand and Lao PDR.

“…While acknowledging that there are some overlaps with niche segments like sustainable tourism, ecotourism, and CBT, the PPTP asserts that they have different foci, purposes and methods. PPT is distinct because it focuses on designing tourism that is appropriate for developing countries and poverty conditions, takes into account a range of livelihood impacts on the poor, prioritizes the socio-economic needs of the poor over conservationist/protectionist stances, and goes beyond the level of community to open up opportunities for the poor on a broad scale at all layers of operation (Ashley et al 2000;Ashley et al 2001aAshley et al , 2001bAshley and Haysom 2006;Deloitte andTouche et al 1999a, 1999b;Goodwin 2000;Roe 2006;Roe and Urquhart 2004;Roe et al 2004b). …”

“…PPT is defined on the basis of the net benefits it brings to poor people and its key criterion is being able to demonstrate that the gains for poor people are greater than the losses (Goodwin 2005;PPTP n.d., What;Roe et al 2004b;Roe 2006). The rich cultural and natural heritage assets of financially poor people present opportunities for PPT product development (Roe and Urquhart 2004;Yunis 2005), but should only be utilized when it is advantageous to the poor people who possess those assets (PPTP 2005).…”

“…As target beneficiaries, the poor and marginalized need to be identified in advance so that interventions can be directed to them, baseline data collected, impacts measured, and outcomes evaluated (Goodwin 2006;PPTP 2005;Roe 2006). From a poverty elimination perspective, targeting all the way down to the level of poor individuals and households within communities is what is important for moving beyond multiplier and trickle down effects-i.e., not just retaining profits within the host country or the local economy, but investing specifically in the goods, services and assets of poor people within the destination (Ashley et al 2000;Roe et al 2004b). …”

“…PPT must be integrated into the entire tourism system, core business operations, government master planning, sector-wide policies, poverty reduction and rural development projects, donor aid, development policy and practice, and consumer choices (Ashley et al 2001b;Ashley and Haysom 2006;Deloitte and Touche et al 1999a;Roe et al 2004b). Incorporating PPT into niche markets like ecotourism and CBT is useful and necessary, but insufficient, requiring that mainstream tourism also be designed and evaluated from the perspective of poverty reduction and impacts on the poor (Ashley et al 2000;Ashley and Haysom 2006;Goodwin 2000).…”