Applying Anthropology for Development Tourism

Applying Anthropology for Development Tourism Natalie Casey

Missouri State University

December 12, 2013 [email protected]

ANT 698 Applying Anthropology for Development Tourism Natalie Casey

1

The emergence of tourism as development parallels the evolution of the field of

development. At mid-century, economic growth for growths sake was seen as the bright future

for developing nations. The growing tourism industry was seen as a contribution, but not a very

significant factor in economic growth. However, mass-tourism began to expand as a greater

percentage of the population in developed nations had access to expendable income for

travelling, and tourism as development influenced the economic policies of destination nations. It

wasn’t untila consciousness raising movement saturated academia in the 1970s that development

activities were seriously critiqued, and the social, cultural, and environmental ills of mass-

tourism development were reported in academic literature. Academic research through the 1980s

and 90s continued to view tourism in a very negative light. However, development professionals

held on to the promise of tourism as a ticket to economic development for less-developed

nations. In the recent era of neoliberal policies, the economic benefits of tourism development

were expected to trickle-down to the poor; however, it became clear that unless the poor are

directly targeted, tourism as development is limited in its ability to transform the lives of the

world’s poorest communities (Ashley et al. 2000, 2001, 2006, Bac 2003, Beirman 2006, Brown

and Hall 2008, Burns 1999, Conway and Timms 2010, Deloitte and Touche 1999, Goodwin

2008, Harrison 2008, Hawkes and Kwortnik 2007, McIntosh and Renard 2010, Schilcher 2007,

Schyvens 2007, Timms and Conway 2012, Tucker and Boonabaana 2012, Zhao and Ritchie

2007).

Since its inception, tourism has always been thought of as a particularly strong sector for

development due to the low start-up costs, built-in market, linkages to domestic and low-skill

labor activities (traditionally performed by women and minorities), potential regardless of

geographic locale (thanks to the advent of modern air transportation), and options for low-


2

income areas where natural or cultural resources may be the only capital available. Beginning in

the late 1990s, the tourism as development movement recognized that generic tourism in and of

itself is very limited in it its ability to alleviate poverty (the main goal of development inspiring

the MDGs). Instead, development professionals and academics called for tourism that was

specifically planned to benefit the poor. In the tourism literature, transmutations of this idea

include: sustainable tourism, community-based tourism, alternative tourism, slow tourism,

ecotourism, and pro-poor tourism. Regardless of the specific name referenced, all of these terms

refer to the basic idea of tourism purposefully planned to benefit local communities with goals to

alleviate poverty, protect the resources of impoverished communities, or provide an alternative to

the unfair economic system that produces the increasing disparity between the haves and have-

nots.

In recent years within the field of tourism as development, there has been an upsurge of

interest in the specific goal of poverty alleviation among governments, NGOs, donor agencies,

and international organizations. This has resulted in the recognition by the international

development apparatus of the potential for tourism to help shape a better future for the 1.2 billion

in the world population living in extreme poverty (less than US$1.25 per day according to

UNDP). In line with the objectives of the UN’s MDGs, and inspired by the work of The Pro-

Poor Tourism Partnership, the United Nations World Tourism Organization launched the

Sustainable Tourism for the Elimination of Poverty initiative (UNWTO ST-EP) in 2002. If this

“panacea” for development is to be realized, there needs to be more constructive criticism of

tourism development and frameworks developed to assist in planning tourism development to

benefit poor communities.


3

In this paper, some of the most commonly reported impediments to and negative

implications of tourism as development are addressed and anthropological solutions to these

obstacles are presented. The literature to date has been primarily a serious critique of tourism as

development. There is a wealth of literature on tourism, development, and (more recently) the

intersection of these two domains. However, there is very little research providing solutions to

the dilemmas of tourism as development. A growing number of tourism development project

case studies are being published and are reporting mixed results, but most offer hope that with

improvement in methods and theory, tourism as development can be successful. What is missing

is research linking praxis and academic theory, particularly in anthropology. This is in part due

to the time-and-space-specific nature of anthropological field work. The specificity of

ethnographic research does not easily lend itself to the formation of models or broad sweeping

theories. However, concurrent with the last 30-40 years of critical analysis of tourism (and

development) has been a movement within anthropology toward an applied approach. Applied

anthropology seeks to link anthropological theory and methods with practice to assist solutions

to human problems. Looking at tourism development projects through an anthropological lens

reveals the complexities of this endeavor and the cultural competency that must be developed for

a bottom-up approach to tourism development and the creation of people-first policies.

Perhaps the greatest issue at hand in development studies today is how to define

development. H.E. Daly suggests that distinction between growth and development is necessary:

“growth is a quantitative increase in physical scale, while development is qualitative

improvement or unfolding of potentialities. An economy can grow without developing, or

develop without growing, or do both, or neither” (1991:402). Development in this sense is

something that cannot be easily converted into a statistical model, but is a distinctive process


4

shaped by individuals’ unique realities. Brown and Hall (2008) remind that defining

development is a matter of scale. Looking at development as personal or even community

improvement is something quite different from assessing the macro-systemic “core v. periphery”

issues of national or global inequity. Dennis Conway and Benjamin F. Timms (2010) agree that

tourism as development must go beyond alleviating poverty in the charitable sense, and must

extend to community enrichment toward egalitarian objectives. They envision alternative forms

of tourism as fostering cultural exchange through which quality of experience is cultivated for

both the hosts and guests (and subsequently some enlightenment that will lead to a better

understanding of how to proceed). Regardless of how “development” is defined in academic or

practical studies of tourism (which tend to both overlap and conflict), the point of reference for a

development project requires much consideration and is best defined by the participating

community themselves. The applied anthropologist has a role to help the community group

navigate the concepts and theories related to tourism development projects such as human rights,

development, globalization, inequality, etc. The consciousness raising aspects of the process of

participatory action research are as important as any particular outcome (Chambers 1997, Freire

1981, Irvin 2005).

“Pro-poor growth” has become something of a catch phrase in development work and is a

part of the working language of the international aid apparatus. Pro-poor growth has been

defined in various ways, with the most standard definition being development that reduces

poverty (most typically measured by increase in GDP) (Zepeda 2004). However, anthropologists

should be engaged in expanding this definition to include ideas such as equality, opportunity, and

self-improvement. It is not clear that a simple increase in GDP of a developing nation (or region)

really benefits the poor. The “benefits” are a matter of subjectivity rather than an object that can


5

be assessed by national level figures and statistics, or even a standard household survey. In

search of a better measurement for development generally and reducing poverty specifically,

much emphasis has been placed on “empowerment” (most often of women or other marginalized

people) as a development goal (Tucker and Boonabaana 2012). Naila Kabeer sees empowerment

as establishing a process “by which those who have been denied the ability to make choices

acquire such ability” (2005:13). Research that makes use of participants own assessment of their

development status is the best way to achieve bottom-up policy based on the lived reality of

disenfranchised individuals (Kabeer 2001). In the case of tourism development to benefit the

poor, applied anthropologists can engage in creating research frameworks based on the

participants own perspectives, evaluations, and analysis.

The direction that tourism as development projects take hinges on how this overarching

question is answered: should development is to be seen as growth of the economy in a

quantitative measure or advancing well-being in a qualitative sense? Literature critiquing tourism

and the ills it produces in the host communities suggests that a quantitative approach to tourism

development is not tenable. Benjamin F. Timms and Dennis Conway and use the term “slow

tourism” to advocate for developing tourism which “promotes equitable economic and social

benefits to local communities, limits its environmental pressures, and serves the growing demand

for responsible tourism” (2012: 398). They feel that a focus on “soft growth,” which favors

better over bigger development, must include three elements to be successful: benefits to the

local community, resource sustainability, and market viability. There is quite a bit of tourism

literature that focuses on “guests” and the increasing market niche of consumers who desiring

“authentic” experiences of culture, as well as reports on the impacts to environmental and

cultural resources (mostly detrimental, but some successful conservation cases) of tourism;


6

however, there is relatively little on how to achieve the third component of this nexus: local

support for, design of, and engagement in meaningful tourism development.

Anthropologists are well positioned to fill this role. Making tourism development a

community-based project requires assessment and analysis customized for the specific

community involved. There is no one-size-fits-all recipe for success. For example, in Jamaica

where mass-tourism is quite successful (in terms of quantitative economic growth), research is

needed to assess if and how this growth is trickling down to the local communities: In what ways

and for whom is this growth beneficial? Who is earning and how are the earnings spent? Given

that among marginalized groups, informal economic activity is often more important than formal

measures, methods such as participant-observation, interviews, and participant led mapping of

economic and social activities is needed to complete this picture. Before it can be said that all

mass-tourism is bad for poor communities, more needs to be investigated about the effects of this

industry that goes beyond the published statistics such as GDP. Most importantly, how do the

local communities view the tourism industry? How do they evaluate their well-being in

relationship to this industry? The starting point for an alternative tourism development project

should be that the local community wants an alternative. The tendency for outsiders to think that

cultural conservation must remain the most important goal (and that neo-liberal policy is always

dangerous) may not be the reality of the community and should be kept in check.

Anthropological training reminds the researcher to remain objective and not let their own ideas

of what development should be dominate the project. The goal of guiding participating

communities through a self-discovery and self-assessment experience rather than directing the

development process according to prescribed models of social and economic indicators is what

sets anthropology apart from other disciplines.


7

Peter Burns offers this summary of the paradoxes of tourism planning:

In general, it must be acknowledged that most societies and communities have the

desire for material wealth and social improvement, it is something of a non

sequitur to assume that such aims can be achieved without impacts or sacrifices.

However, it is equally fallacious to assume that by placing an economic value on

culture and environment, tourism will provide a rationale for conservation.

[1999:346]

Burns suggests that an alternative to the extremely polarized models of planning

(capitalistic economic growth model vs. patronizing cultural conservation model) should be a

continuum of planning approaches. The role of the applied anthropologist is to guide the

participating community in a process that allows them to place themselves somewhere on this

continuum. Once the community’s position is established, planning can proceed in the direction

that is best for the community. There are many tempopolitical dynamics that might influence a

community’s framework for tourism as development planning, including colonial and post-

colonial history (according to dependency theorists a primary reason for a nation’s

underdeveloped status in the first place, see Gunder Frank 1967); national policies and

discourses; presence of mass-tourism or an established tourism industry; relationships with

outside donors, organizations, and funding/planning agencies; internal community structure; etc.

Therefore the process of participatory action research involves identifying the specific histories,

politics, and social elements that are most relevant to the community itself. Through this process,

participants should develop awareness of these issues. This self-awareness might lead to

outcomes other than expected by the other stakeholders and perhaps even different from what

had been imagined by the community itself. However, through the participatory action research

process community ownership of the project is produced in the sense that the research

information is created by and belongs to the community (“community-based development” in

reality, not just rhetoric).


8

Representing “community” in community-based tourism is not as straightforward as it

sounds. Development professionals have realized that development projects must be community-

based to be successful; however the representation of a community has many implications

depending on the strategy and discourse used to create this identity and whose interests are

actually being served in this depiction. J. Peter Brosius et al. bring up some pressing questions:

What kinds of images of communities are being produced in community-based

resource management projects, programs, and policies? To what extent do [these]

discourses produce images of communities, cultures, and resource management

practices that are essentialized, timeless, and homogeneous? To what extend

might such instances of the ‘invention of community’ have positive or

problematic consequences- and for whom?” To what extent, and how, do these

representations reflect local concerns, NGO preoccupations, or the interests of

transnational conservation, human rights, and environmental donors? [Brosius et

al 1998:165]

Using ethnographic methods to tease out the individual histories and unique political

dynamics of a community and engaging participatory research to enable the community to

develop their own identity can help to avoid these concerns. Anthropology recognizes that

communities are not homogeneous and individuals within any community transform

development differently. While there is always the potential for a few within a community to

direct the process toward their own goals, it is far better for the community to be involved rather

than using generic data and outsiders’ analysis of the information to create a portrait of the

community. Jill Belski urges that “attention to multiple interests and identities within rural

communities and their relationships to broader actors and institutions is critical in meeting the

formidable challenges facing community-based conservation efforts” (1999: 642).


9

A challenge equal to authentically representing communities is negotiating gender.

Gender has become a central issue in tourism development studies. Tourism is heralded as

beneficial to women due to the nature of the labor it requires and the linkages to service, food

production, and domestic industries (Ashley et al. 2001, Bac 2003, Brown and Hall 2008, Burns

1999, Conway and Timms 2010 Goodwin 2008, Harrison 2008, Schilcher 2007, Schyvens 2007,

Timms and Conway 2012, Tucker and Boonabaana 2012). If this is to be realized as the solution

that it is purported to be, there must be a thorough examination of the complex nature of

development as a gendered prospect. Hazel Tucker and Brenda Boonabaana examine two rural

tourism development case studies side by side to “explore the ways in which individuals

negotiated the gendered discourses by resisting and also participating in particular cultural

practices” (2012:437). They find that while both projects and settings were similar as far as the

initial development status of the communities and in the targeting of women’s empowerment as a

development goal, the outcomes were dissimilar: “women and men were positioned, and

positioned themselves in fluid and contradictory ways in relation to the significant changes

implicated in the relationship between tourism, gender, and poverty reduction” (Tucker and

Boonabaana 2012:437). The point that can be taken is that development projects must be careful

not to overgeneralize about gender and recognize that cultural rules are flexible. This is where

anthropologists can bring skill and expertise in outlining the complexities of gender relationships

and household dynamics and the different ways in which both men and women may imagine or

re-imagine a development project.

Anthropologists can inform development projects toward a culturally competent

paradigm which reflects the lived reality of the local community. Dennis Conway and Benjamin

F. Timms (2010) claim that one of the obstacles in tourism, leakages (benefits of tourism


10

development flowing to those outside of the local community), can be stifled by increasing

linkages (a variety of community goods and services that support the tourism industry) provided

by “entrepreneurial minded” individuals. This vision of alternative tourism is based on the

Western archetype that good citizens of the community want to be business leaders and that the

beliefs and that worldviews of the community would value enterprising activities. Instead of

relying on an inherently capitalistic spirit to motivate actions, what might be better is to focus on

specific trades, resources, or skills that a community has traditionally supported and valued. This

once again will take some ethnographic and historical research to tease out. For example, if

fishing is a strong part of a community’s identity, then a tourism plan should focus on

encouraging the activities of a collective group supporting this trade and allowing this interest

group to lead the planning of a development project to ensure that there will be local

participation in employment and enterprise opportunities.

The dominant discourse of development has focused on dimensions of the formal

economy (agriculture for export, tourism, mining, manufacturing, etc.), leaving out substantial

portions of the economy, particularly in less-developed regions, or within marginalized

populations where informal economic activity (unregulated or untaxed, “under the table”

transactions) may be more significant than traditional economic sector activity (McIntosh and

Renard 2010). Value-chain analysis is one technique that is being used more by anthropologists.

This research method is showing potential to reveal details of the informal economy as well as

insights into how capital flows within a community (Zhao and Ritchie 2007).

Anthropology can be particularly useful in revealing the uses of common property

resources and how individuals within a community utilize these resources. The relationship

between ownership of resources and the structure of the community is complex, may vary


11

according to cultural rules, and may be more flexible than traditional economic models allow.

Sarah McIntosh and Yves Renard (2010) examine the role that common property plays in

community development projects in the Caribbean, particularly with regard to the management

of natural resources for enterprise and livelihoods. They point to historical (remnants of colonial

era land tenure patterns), environmental (small, closely linked vulnerable island ecosystems),

social and cultural (tenuous feelings toward ownership/entitlement, ambiguous relationship to

land and landscape, lack of skills, capacities, and systems to support small enterprise), and

economic (structure driven by large-scale production for export markets, controlled by external

clientele, and not supportive of small independent enterprises) factors unique to the region that

shape how development will be received and utilized by local communities (McIntosh and

Renard 2010).

Through ethnographic field methods, applied anthropologists can use the specific

historical, environmental, sociocultural, and economic situation of a community to create a map

for community development (Irvin 2005). Literally, actual maps for reference can be created

through GIS technology in order to communicate with other development professionals in a

domain dominated by facts, figures, and quantitative representations of data. Regardless of how

the information is communicated, it is essential that development planning capture the lived

reality of the community, including the informal or unofficial socioeconomic aspects unique to

the time and place of a project.

Anthropologists are also well positioned to examine more theoretical issues surrounding

tourism development. In an increasingly connected global economy where travel is easier than

ever, the mass migration of people (even if temporary) is bound to bring up many issues such as

who has access to travel, what are the destinations of choice, who benefits and who is harmed by


12

tourism activities. The complex relationships between host and guests and the dynamic

repercussions of this activity prove to be changing how people are governed and govern

themselves. Carla Guerron Montero reveals that seeming disparate processes occurring

simultaneously stand as a significant structural hurdle to tourism development: “tourism has a

homogenizing effect that persuades localities to refashion themselves into entities that conform

to tourists’ expectations” and at the same time “as a part of a market culture driven by

consumption that requires a steady supply of new products, tourism encourages increased

segmentation and competition among locations” (2011:1). In examining the systems of power

that lead to both the homogenizing and segmentation effects of tourism, anthropological theory

has great potential to assist in correcting some of the downfalls of tourism development.

Identifying how the multiple stakeholders of tourism intersect, the relative positions of power

that each of the stakeholder groups has, and the agency of the stakeholders can provide a picture

of the system in which the tourism development project is operating.

Making destinations, heritages, or identities into commodities that conform to the

pressures of an ever expanding market is an integral component of the tourism industry.

Anthropology can be applied to address the theoretical implications (and subsequent policy

repercussions) of this commodification and globalization process. Philip Scher (2011) points to

the example of the Trinidad and Tobago Carnival to highlight the significant implications of

“selling culture.” During the recent recession, culture has increasingly become a marketing force

for isolated low-income communities with little access to the global economy or few other

resources available to them. “Identity” in postcolonial states is a very complicated and contested

issue, and tourism development pressures to market these identities amplify these contests. In the

modern tourism industry, culture has value beyond the intangible essences; there are concrete


13

economic values placed on cultural resources by local communities, NGOs/donors, and the state.

“The resulting formation yields a state interested in issues of identity not solely for abstract

conceptions of a culturally emancipated citizenry, but as a form of governmentality in which the

lives of constituents are always to be seen, at least in part, as performances in the service of an

economic sector: tourism and heritage” (Scher 2011:7). Applied anthropologists can explore

notions such as Foucault’s (2003) biopower in the evaluation of states’ intervention into and

governance of cultural practices, performances, and resources. In Scher’s example, the Trinidad

and Tobago Carnival, elements of the cultural performance such as the characters, who is

authorized to portray them, and the specifics of the performances are increasingly regulated by

the state. This is seen as necessary to preserve the authenticity that is the marketing force of the

tourism industry where many Caribbean destinations are competing against each other for

increasing shares of the tourism market. This raises many questions about the control of and

exercise of power in regard to culture. Communities and nation states must create a “nationally

sanctioned self” to be marketed to potential investors and visitors (Scher 2011). The power

dynamics involved in determining the identity that will be endorsed and how the culture is

advertised or represented through guidebooks and promotional materials are complicated to say

the least.

However, neo-liberal economic policies for the Caribbean have encouraged the tourism

industry over other industries that might compete with the core developed nations. This market

niche, however requires that developing nations compete with each other by inventing ever

increasingly special, unique, or authentic identities. Thus, cultural identity is controlled in

political realms “previously considered private, blurring the notions of public, private and state

involvement, re-framing the political economy of cultural heritage in the Caribbean” (Scher


14

2011:9). Institutional oversight and legal protection of cultural forms to secure market viability

is part and parcel of the commodification of culture. Scher points out that these interventions

amount to “biopower” or “biopolitical” control and are a significant component of

governmentality (Foucault 2003). The components of governmentality and the manifestations of

biopower within a community are important considerations in planning successful development

projects (Edelman and Haugerud 2005). Anthropologists should be aware of the dilemma posed

by the desired (and necessary) participation in a neoliberal global economy, and advocate

awareness of these issues to the development apparatus at large so that projects can be planned

and policies put in place to mitigate the trend toward a hegemonic model of culture (that has

potential to destroy the very notion of culture as a resource for tourism development).

Access to and use of Information Technology (IT) is an important aspect of development

and raises issues of democratization, representation, and equal access (Conway and Timms

2012). The discourse used in development can limit or delimit the potential for communities

participating in development projects to seek out a better future (Edelman and Haugerud 2005).

IT can be thought of as a discourse, controlled by the core, which the periphery must gain

competence in and have access to in order to participate in a globalized economy. Applied

anthropologists can assist communities in navigating IT as well as using IT to democratize the

development process. It can be harnessed for marketing, funding, and executing development

projects in low-income, marginalized, and remote regions. IT can provide a means to connect

ethically-minded guests seeking authentic experiences with emerging hosts of slow tourism

enterprise as well as share ideas between cultures.

The impact of tourism development on the environment and resources of low-income

communities is another pressing concern for development planners. The ability for an ecosystem


15

to sustain necessary levels of tourism is a valid question, particularly in island states where

ecosystems are limited in size and carrying capacity (Conway and Timms 2010). Contests over

resource use between the state, NGOs/donor groups, international agencies, and local

communities can have profound consequences to development projects. Applied anthropologists

are uniquely situated to bridge the gap between ecological science (and its practitioners) and the

local communities who rely on their environment for their way of life (Ervin 2005, Winthrop

2013). Understanding local ideas about resource use and concepts about ecology is essential to

understand how resources can be managed for tourism development. In addition, an

anthropological approach to raising awareness in the local community about environmental

impact issues stemming from or potentially mitigated by tourism development (in the case of

ecotourism projects) can help the local community make more appropriate decisions for

development projects and stimulate “buy-in” to projects or provide the understanding of the

issues necessary for ownership of the research outcomes.

Weibing Zhao and Brent Ritchie (2007) call for the development of an integrative

research framework for tourism and poverty alleviation. Drawing on development frameworks

established by the development apparatus, their version is tailored toward tourism development.

At the highest level of this integrative research framework are the key components of

development projects: analysis, monitoring, and evaluation. There is a good deal of analysis of

the poverty alleviation process, however, applied anthropologists can be instrumental in

development of innovative monitoring and evaluation techniques that better reflect the realities

of the participants. The next level in Zhao and Ritchie’s framework are the development

determinants: opportunity, empowerment, and security. Applied anthropology can be used to

shape each of these terms into definitions specific to the community at hand: what are the official


16

and unofficial means of opportunity? how does the community envision empowerment? what

specific situations are security concerns? Apt Themes for tourism development comprise the next

sublevel in this integrative research framework: destination competitiveness, local participation,

and destination sustainability. Applied anthropologists can help reveal the possible implications

of certain decisions regarding creating identities, destination marketing, and resource allocation,

as well as distinguish local concepts of economy, politics, and ecology that need to be considered

in the planning process. The final layer of the framework provided by Zhao and Ritchie are the

stakeholders. Anthropology has been at the forefront of this movement. One of the foundations

of anthropological research is the identification of all the stakeholders in a situation, how they

relate to one another, the role they each play in systems of power and agency. The ability to

develop consensus building procedures specific to the local community is essential in bringing

together the stakeholders of a community development project.

It is clear that the implications of tourism as development are complex and multi-faceted.

From social and cultural concerns such as maintaining the life-ways of communities; to

economic matters such as livelihoods and growth; to environmental impacts to local ecosystems;

to ethical issues such as democracy, opportunity and equality; tourism as development must

attend to a myriad of interests in order to be successful in helping local communities build a

better future. Anthropology is a discipline with this holistic focus at its heart. Even with all the

criticism surrounding tourism and development, development continues. The development

apparatus is a force so strongly propelled by a forward momentum that it likely cannot be

stopped.

So, rather than an alternative to development, applied anthropology holds great promise

in assisting development to be defined, planned, implemented, monitored, and evaluated the


17

people who will be most affected by its consequences. Applying anthropology to outline the

dynamics of communities, mitigate environmental crisis, bridge the multiple disciplines of

development professionals, manage cultural and natural resources, engage communities in

participatory action research, examine the discourse and structure of development, and lend

awareness to the ethical dilemmas of a globalizing humanity can help development proceed

toward a future (even if idyllic) where the processes, procedures, and policies reflect the lived

reality of the communities it seeks to empower.


18

Bibliography

Ashley C., C. Boyd, and H. Godwin

2000 Pro-Poor Tourism: Putting Poverty at the Heart of the Tourism Agenda. Natural Resource

Perspectives 51. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Ashley, C. Roe, D., and Harold Goodwin

2001 Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: Making Tourism Work for the Poor. A Review of Experience. Pro-

Poor Tourism Partnership Report No. 1. London: Overseas Development Institute, International

Institute for Environment and Development, Centre for Responsible Tourism.

Ashley, C., Goodwin, H., McNab, D., Scott, M., and L. Chaves

2006 Making Tourism Count for the Local Economy in the Caribbean: Guidelines for Good Practice.

London: Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership, Caribbean Tourism Organization.

Bac, Dorin-Paul

2013 Sustainable Tourism and Its Forms- A Theoretical Approach. Department of Economics,

University of Oradea, Romania.

Beirman, David

2006 Commentary on “Connecting with Culture”: The Challenge of Sustaining Community Tourism.

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 47:382-387.

Belsky, Jill M.

1999 Misrepresenting Communities: The Politics of Community-Based Rural Ecotourism in Gales Point

Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology 64(4):641-666.

Brosius, J. Peter, Zerner, Charles, and Anna L. Tsing

1998 Representing Communities: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Resource Management.

Society and Natural Resources. 11:157-168.

Brown, Frances, and Derek Hall

2008 Tourism and Development in the Global South: The Issues. Third World Quarterly 29(5):839-849.

Burns, Peter

1999 Paradoxes in Planning: Tourism Elitism or Brutalism? Annals of Tourism Research 26(2):329-348.

Chambers, Robert

1997 Whose Reality Really Counts?: Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology

Publications.

Clarke, Mari H.

2013 International Development. In A Handbook of Practicing Anthropology. Riall W. Nolan, ed.

Pp.266-277. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.


19

Conway, Dennis, and Benjamin F. Timms

2010 Re-Branding Alternative Tourism in the Caribbean: The Case for ‘Slow Tourism.’ Tourism and

Hospitality Research 10(4):329-344.

Daly, H.E.

1991 Sustainable Growth: A Bad Oxymoron. Environment and Carcinogenic Reviews 8(2):401-407.

Deloitte and Touche

1999 Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Elimination: A Report for the Department of International

Development. London: Deloitte and Touche, Overseas Development Institute, International Institute

for Environment and Development

Edelman, Marc and Angelique Haugerud

2005 The Anthropology of Development and Globalization: From Classical Political Economy to

Contemporary Neoliberalism. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Foucault, M.

2003 Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College De France, 1977-1978. London: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Freire, Paulo

1970 Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

1981 Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Continuum.

Goodwin, Harold

2008 Pro-Poor Tourism: A Response. Third World Quarterly 29(5):869-871.

Guerron Montero, Carla

2011 Heritage, identity, and Globalization: The Case of Island Tourism in the Caribbean. Bulletin of

Latin American Research 30(1):1-6.

Harrison, David

2008 Pro-Poor Tourism: A Critique. Third World Quarterly 29(5):851-868.

Hawkes, Ethan, and Robert J. Kwortnik, Jr.

2006 Connecting with the Culture: A Case Study in Sustainable Tourism. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly 47:369-381.

Irvin, Alexander M.

2005 Applying Anthropology: Tools and Perspectives for Contemporary Practice. Boston: Pearson

Education.


20

Kabeer, Naila

2001 Conflicts Over credit: Re-evaluating the Empowerment Potential of Loans to Women in Rural

Bangladesh. World Development 29(1):63-84.

McIntosh, Sarah, and Yves Renard

2010 Placing the Commons at the Heart of Community Development: Three Case Studies of

Community

Enterprise in Caribbean Islands. International Journal of the Commons 4(1):160-182.

Mitchell, Jonathan

2012 Value Chain Approaches to Assessing the Impact of Tourism on Low-Income Households in

Developing Countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(3):457-475.

Winthrop, Robert

2013 Environment and Resources. In A Handbook of Practicing Anthropology. Riall W. Nolan, ed.

Pp.266-277. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Scher, Philip W.

2011 Heritage Tourism in the Caribbean: The Politics of Culture after Neoliberalism. Bulletin of Latin

American Research 30(1):7-20.

Schilcher, Daniela

2007 Growth Versus Equity: The Continuum of Pro-Poor Tourism and Neoliberal Governance. In Pro-

Poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty reduction. Colin M. Hall ed. Pp.

56-83. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Channel View Press.

Schyvens, Regina

2007 Exploring the Tourism-Poverty Nexus. In Pro-Poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspectives on

Tourism and Poverty reduction. Colin M. Hall ed. Pp. 121-144. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Channel

View Press.

Stipanuk, David

2006 Connecting with Culture: A VillageLife Approach. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration

Quarterly 47:388-389.

Timms, Benjamin F., and Dennis Conway

2012 Slow Tourism at the Caribbean’s Geographical Margins. Tourism Geographies 14(3):396-418.

Tucker, Hazel and Brenda Boonabaana

2012 A Critical Analysis of Tourism, Gender, and Poverty Reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism

20(3):437-455.


21

United Nations Development Programme

N.d. Millennium Development Goals. UNDP.

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/mdg_goals/mdg1/, accessed

December 9, 2013.

United Nations World Tourism Organization

N.d. The ST-EP Initiative, Background and Objectives. UNWTO.

http://step.unwto.org/content/background-and-objectives, accessed December 9, 2013.

Zepeda, Eduardo

2004 Pro-poor Growth: What is it? September, No. 1. Brasilia: International Poverty Centre, United

Nations Development Programme.

Zhao, Weibing and J.R. Brent Ritchie

2007 Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: An Integrative Research Framework. In Pro-Poor Tourism: Who

Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty reduction. Colin M. Hall, ed. Pp. 9-33. Clevedon,

Buffalo, Toronto: Channel View Press.

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/mdg_goals/mdg1/

http://step.unwto.org/content/background-and-objectives

Date post:	23-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	missouristate
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Applying Anthropology for Development Tourism

Documents