particularly important is agriculture. As Torres and Momsen (2004) note, agricul-ture remains the livelihood of most of the poorest people in developing countries and tourism has the potential to create extra demand for local agricultural produce.
However, the development of this backward linkage is dependent upon the tourism industry being willing to facilitate communications and negotiations with local farmers, and they, in turn, having the ability to supply produce of a quality and regularity that is demanded by the industry.
A further reason for the necessity to develop linkages to other economic sectors such as agriculture is that without it, there is a danger that a polarised form of devel-opment based upon tourism may take place (Brohman, 1996). Subsequently, as tourism becomes more successful, the rest of the economy fails to follow, causing a disparity of wealth between tourism and other types of economic activity (Torres and Momsen, 2004). The medium- to long-term effects of this are for more natural and human resources to be used for tourism as it becomes more fi nancially benefi -cial than other economic sectors. The ultimate effect may be to create an economic over-dependency upon tourism and a subsequent threat to livelihoods and social well-being if demand falls. The threat of a decrease in tourism demand, combined with the vulnerability of tourism demand to external factors, is a signifi cant chal-lenge to the use of tourism as means for development or tackling poverty. Events such as terrorism, natural disasters, economic recession and changing market tastes all threaten tourism demand. Even if it may seem that prioritising the use of tourism for poverty reduction lends a moral authority to a right for the success of a tourism destination market competition from other destinations will remain. The use of tourism for poverty reduction does not bestow an automatic right for success on a destination; its success will depend on marketing and the quality of the product just as for any other tourism destination or type of tourism.
to those recognised in economic multiplier theory: the direct, secondary and dynamic impacts. However, they have been modifi ed and re-focused to the poor, also incorporating positive and negative environmental and social changes that may affect their livelihood opportunities, and are summarised after Mitchell and Ashley (2010) as:
1. Direct effects . Incorporated into this category are positive and negative direct effects from tourism development on the poor. The creation of employment opportunities for the poor in the tourism industry and informal sector and micro-enterprises are an important and obvious example of a positive direct effect on livelihoods and income. However, other direct effects of tourism on the poor that may improve their well-being may be less obvious. For example, the poor may directly benefi t from the improvements in infrastructure required for tourism development, providing access to telecommunications, clean water, energy supplies, sanitation and roads, which may enhance both the standard of living and other livelihood opportunities. Conversely, tourism development could have a negative effect on livelihood opportunities; for example, resulting in a reduced access to beach resources as a consequence of their privatisation for hotel devel-opment. The development of tourism may also change a household’s exposure to the risk of poverty. It may be reduced if tourism provides a diversifi cation of income streams or increased if a culture of over-dependency on tourism is created exposing households to a downturn in demand. In terms of having the greatest positive impacts on livelihoods, creating employment opportunities for the poor in the tourism industry should be the key target of policy.
2. Secondary effects . In this pathway, emphasis is placed on the indirect and induced effects of tourism development on the poor. In an economic context, indirect effects occur when a change in tourism expenditure impacts on the non-tourism economy. Other sectors of the economy that are stimulated by investment and expenditure in tourism typically include construction, agriculture and fi sh-eries but also embrace handicraft production, an economic sector that may be especially signifi cant for the creation of livelihood opportunities and the empow-erment of women. For tourism to create demand in these economic sectors, it is essential that the supply chain of the tourism industry is linked to them to reduce the effects of economic leakages and create employment opportunities. It is also critical for the success of PRS that the secondary industries have policies and directives to incorporate the poor into their operations so that they benefi t from increased levels of economic activity. The geographical impacts of these secondary effects are also important to tourism’s use in poverty reduction as they have a further spatial reach than the direct impacts that occur primarily in the destination, subsequently benefi ting households over a larger geographical area.
Owing to the diversity of the industries involved in the supply chain, the indirect effects also benefi t a larger number of households compared to the direct, albeit
with smaller earnings per household. There is also the additional but signifi cant environmental benefi t of a reduced carbon footprint as the transport distances of supply chain produce for the tourism industry are minimised.
Important for conceptualising economic impacts of tourism on the poor is the economic multiplier model as was discussed in Chapter 2 . The basis of this model is that expenditure on tourism and the stimulation of extra demand in its supply chain and linked economic sectors means money begins to circulate in the economy.
For example, employees in the tourism industry and the secondary industries that supply it will spend some of their wages on goods and services that in turn induces extra demand in the economy, which in turn may create extra employment oppor-tunities for the poor. Theoretically, the initial tourism investment could circulate indefi nitely in the economy but it does not, as in each round of expenditure there are economic leakages, thereby removing it from circulation. This occurs for a variety of reasons including repaying interest charges on foreign loans for tourism development; imports for the tourism industry – for example, kitchen equipment for hotels and food, drink and beach products; the repatriation of profi ts by foreign travel and tourism companies; the employment of foreign workers who may send money home to their relatives; and the paying of taxes to the government.
3. Dynamic effects. The focus of this pathway is how tourism impacts on the wider structure of the economy over time. Whilst the effects are less tangible than for the previous two pathways, they can be signifi cant for the poor. Examples of dynamic changes could include the integration of women into economic networks, which may induce social changes on the perception of the role of women in society. As well as bringing direct benefi ts, the development of infrastructure may offer dynamic benefi ts for the poor by opening up access for opportunities that previously had not existed; for example, being able to physically access education that had previously been geographically remote. Such opportunities will provide dynamism to the economy and result in economic growth. Conversely, economic changes following the success of tourism may also occur in the economy that may have a negative impact on other economic sectors upon which the poor rely for employment. For example, a strengthening national economic profi le based on a boom in tourism may raise the value of the national currency against foreign currencies making agricultural exports more expensive, leading to a reduction in foreign demand. This would adversely affect the livelihoods of the poor, as agriculture is a sector of the economy that employs and interacts with many poor people. It is subsequently evident that the use of tourism in PRSs needs to accommodate various scenarios of how tourism could potentially impact longitudinally on other sectors of the economy upon which the poor are reliant.
These three pathways are indicative of how the poor could potentially be affected by tourism. Whilst there appear to be potential benefi ts and livelihood
opportunities that can be created through tourism for the poor, the theory means little in terms of reducing poverty unless it is possible for the poor to access these opportunities. Instrumental to the creation of opportunities is the necessity for the implementation of a range of measures ranging from focusing on the poor in macro-policy to raising the knowledge and skills capacity of the poor to work in the tourism industry or to develop their entrepreneurial skills. Careful consid-eration also needs to be given to how to create opportunities for the poor in the tourism supply chain, including industries in which they are traditionally employed, e.g. agriculture and fi shing. Alongside offering a means to help coun-tries to meet a reduction in poverty as one of the MDGs, tourism may also play an important role in the creation of opportunities for women, perhaps for the fi rst time. Not only is this important for the individuals but also wider policy objec-tives to empower women and give them a larger voice in the running of societies.