Last week I began a series of entries on tourism and ideas of extreme tourism in particular. Beginning with space tourism, I moved on to consider the stereotypes, demographics and regulatory sides of extreme and adventure tourism. This developed into a third entry on dark tourism and the motivations, constraints and morality of that sub-sector. Most recently, I posted about the impetus given to tourism in fragile parts of the world, by the ‘last chance to see’ culture.
One of the ironies involved in extreme or doom tourism is its association with the growth in popularity of visits to some of the poorest regions. The World Tourism Organisation (WTO) estimates that since 1990, international tourism receipts in developing countries have increased six-fold, while in high-income countries activity has merely doubled. This clearly offers benefits to people in developing economies.
The WTO notes that tourism is the primary source of foreign earnings for the world’s 49 Least Developed Countries. Tourism is the main export in more than 80% of developing countries and can account for more than a quarter of GDP in some countries, especially small island states. For Pro-Poor Tourism, visitors are often motivated travel to remote places, drawn by opportunities to experience at times unique and fragile cultures, wildlife and landscape activities.
As tourism in these areas requires infrastructure such as water, sewerage, transport, communications and energy, there are benefits to be had by local people in poverty. Tourism here means the chance for employment and income as the industry employs and trains staff, while making use of local people’s assets, such as their knowledge and natural resources. In this way among others, the organisation believes tourism offers poverty-reduction power.
Of course, tourism in developing countries also has negative characteristics which should be addressed in the planning stage. These include disruption or theft of land, water and other natural assets; cultural exploitation and unwanted commercialisation; and poor returns for local communities. In general, a viable tourism industry often involves significant infrastructure investment, which may be co-funded by government and the private sector. Where foreign companies dominate, profits can leak out away from the developing country. Taken together with the volatility of tourism demand to economic patterns, perhaps the costs outweigh the benefits?
Or perhaps the dangers posed by encouraging tourism in less developed countries, can be controlled? The case of Bhutan in the eastern Himalayas, bordering Tibet and India, offers an example of how this can be achieved. Bhutan opted for a low-volume, high-value model of tourism, involving tight control and protection of the environment, stressing cultural wealth and economic self-reliance. Tourists to Bhutan must pre-book their holiday, spend at least $200 a day, visiting only certain areas of the country.
If this strategy helps Bhutan deliver the macro-objective goals of its Gross National Happiness project: peace and happiness of the people; and security and sovereignty of the country, then although ‘happiness’ and ‘security’ can mean different things to different people, it may be judged a success.