Can Slum Tourism Ever be Considered Pro-poor? An Insight into Tours to Favela de Rocinha - Rio de Janeiro
Author: Helen Marples
1 Commentries
Abstract: For years, many tourists have been opting to participate in slum tours in urban settlements in less economically developed countries. Whilst tourism has been argued to be tool for poverty alleviation, there have been many debates on whether slum tourism can be considered pro-poor due to the associated negative stigma of exploitation and voyeurism. Therefore, this paper will assess if slum tourism can be considered pro-poor in the case of favela de Rocinha, by assessing the pros and cons before using primary research to understand tourist perceptions on whether they considered themselves to be involved in poverty alleviation.
Key Words: Slum, Pro-poor, Poverty Alleviation, Leakage, Commodification
In a world of new tourism where people are seeking alternative experiences, slum tourism, which involves tourists flocking to poor, urban settlements has increased dramatically. It is believed tour operators have been the curators of this phenomenon, allowing people to experience poverty first hand (Frenzal, 2012). In a time where governments in LEDC’s are using tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation, it raises the question whether slum tourism also has these capabilities (WTO, 2002). An alternate name for this is ‘pro-poor tourism’. It is believed general tourism development has achieved this through the high economic spending and labour intensity of the industry which creates jobs and income (WTO, 2002). However, due to slum tourism having words such as ‘exploitation’ and ‘voyeurism’ associated with the activity, it has raised many debates on whether it can be considered pro-poor (Chok et al, 2007). Favela de Rocinha which is a slum in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil has been at the forefront of these debates due to the numbers of external tour guides, and also the tours featuring in many tourist guide books and blogs, leading it to gain a reputation of a tourist attraction. The tours in Rocinha have therefore been accused of commercialising poverty, and widening the gap between the rich and poor (Chok et al, 2007).
Despite this commercialisation, many have argued how it can still portray benefits. These have arisen through the direct opportunities presented to slum dwellers when tourists enter their communities. These communities often try to make a living though the production of traditional crafts, therefore access to tourists will enable them to sell these goods (WTO, 2002). Economic benefits can further be enhanced through the opportunity for employment either directly as tour guides (Chok et al, 2007), or indirectly in related sectors such as hotels and restaurants which allows the income generated by foreign exchange to trickle down into the communities (WTO, 2002). However, if the tours are not managed ethically, economic and social leakage will occur (Frenzel, 2012). Despite the employment opportunity, foreign investors own many of the tours and tourism establishments, meaning the profits cannot always be guaranteed to reach the communities (Chok et al, 2007). The main ethical debates have arisen through the accused commodification and exploitation of poverty through tourists wanting to experience ‘real’ cultures and living conditions (Frenzel, 2012).
To assess these benefits and consequences of slum tours in Rocinha, and the extent to which participation can be perceived as pro-poor, an interview was conducted with a tourist who has visited the favela. The main findings addressed the motivations and behaviours of tourists, the activities of the tour, the extent of local participation and perceptions of the extent of poverty alleviation. It was found that the tourist was initially motivated out of curiosity, exerting no pro-poor characteristics (Chok et al, 2007). However, post-tour, the voyeurism turned into a desire to help (Burgold and Rolfes, 2013). Despite acknowledgement of the importance of community participation, it was found that no locals were employed through the operator, and whilst tourists were given the opportunity to buy local produce, many did not, limiting foreign exchange and economic benefits (Frenzel, 2012). Instead the participant described commodified and exploitative behaviours through the gazing of people’s homes, and the purposive use of the most impoverished areas as the tour routes. The participant further explained how any benefits that were reaped through either the selling of goods, or employment in supporting sectors, was simply too low to be considered a tool for poverty alleviation (Frenzel, 2012).
It can be concluded that despite the arguments for slum tourism as a poverty alleviation strategy, it cannot be considered pro-poor in favela de Rocinha. Although some pro-poor principles were evident through the selling of goods, employment in supporting sectors, and the post-tour desire to help, due to the increasing commodification, these benefits are simply too small to outweigh the consequences. Whilst it is unlikely slum tours will ever be successful in alleviating poverty alone, research can be done to assess how they can be implemented into wider pro-poor initiatives, to reduce the negative stigma.
Key References:
Chok, S. Macbeth, J. and Warren, C. (2007) Tourism as a Tool for Poverty Alleviation: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Poor Tourism and Implications for Sustainability. In: Michael C Hall (ed.) Pro-poor tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction. Clevedon: Channel View, 34-56.
Frenzal, F. (2012) Slum tourism in the context of the tourism and poverty (relief) debate. Journal of the Geographical Society of Berlin, 144 (2) 117-128.
World Tourism Organisation (WTO) (2002) Tourism and poverty alleviation. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.
Key Words: Slum, Pro-poor, Poverty Alleviation, Leakage, Commodification
In a world of new tourism where people are seeking alternative experiences, slum tourism, which involves tourists flocking to poor, urban settlements has increased dramatically. It is believed tour operators have been the curators of this phenomenon, allowing people to experience poverty first hand (Frenzal, 2012). In a time where governments in LEDC’s are using tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation, it raises the question whether slum tourism also has these capabilities (WTO, 2002). An alternate name for this is ‘pro-poor tourism’. It is believed general tourism development has achieved this through the high economic spending and labour intensity of the industry which creates jobs and income (WTO, 2002). However, due to slum tourism having words such as ‘exploitation’ and ‘voyeurism’ associated with the activity, it has raised many debates on whether it can be considered pro-poor (Chok et al, 2007). Favela de Rocinha which is a slum in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil has been at the forefront of these debates due to the numbers of external tour guides, and also the tours featuring in many tourist guide books and blogs, leading it to gain a reputation of a tourist attraction. The tours in Rocinha have therefore been accused of commercialising poverty, and widening the gap between the rich and poor (Chok et al, 2007).
Despite this commercialisation, many have argued how it can still portray benefits. These have arisen through the direct opportunities presented to slum dwellers when tourists enter their communities. These communities often try to make a living though the production of traditional crafts, therefore access to tourists will enable them to sell these goods (WTO, 2002). Economic benefits can further be enhanced through the opportunity for employment either directly as tour guides (Chok et al, 2007), or indirectly in related sectors such as hotels and restaurants which allows the income generated by foreign exchange to trickle down into the communities (WTO, 2002). However, if the tours are not managed ethically, economic and social leakage will occur (Frenzel, 2012). Despite the employment opportunity, foreign investors own many of the tours and tourism establishments, meaning the profits cannot always be guaranteed to reach the communities (Chok et al, 2007). The main ethical debates have arisen through the accused commodification and exploitation of poverty through tourists wanting to experience ‘real’ cultures and living conditions (Frenzel, 2012).
To assess these benefits and consequences of slum tours in Rocinha, and the extent to which participation can be perceived as pro-poor, an interview was conducted with a tourist who has visited the favela. The main findings addressed the motivations and behaviours of tourists, the activities of the tour, the extent of local participation and perceptions of the extent of poverty alleviation. It was found that the tourist was initially motivated out of curiosity, exerting no pro-poor characteristics (Chok et al, 2007). However, post-tour, the voyeurism turned into a desire to help (Burgold and Rolfes, 2013). Despite acknowledgement of the importance of community participation, it was found that no locals were employed through the operator, and whilst tourists were given the opportunity to buy local produce, many did not, limiting foreign exchange and economic benefits (Frenzel, 2012). Instead the participant described commodified and exploitative behaviours through the gazing of people’s homes, and the purposive use of the most impoverished areas as the tour routes. The participant further explained how any benefits that were reaped through either the selling of goods, or employment in supporting sectors, was simply too low to be considered a tool for poverty alleviation (Frenzel, 2012).
It can be concluded that despite the arguments for slum tourism as a poverty alleviation strategy, it cannot be considered pro-poor in favela de Rocinha. Although some pro-poor principles were evident through the selling of goods, employment in supporting sectors, and the post-tour desire to help, due to the increasing commodification, these benefits are simply too small to outweigh the consequences. Whilst it is unlikely slum tours will ever be successful in alleviating poverty alone, research can be done to assess how they can be implemented into wider pro-poor initiatives, to reduce the negative stigma.
Key References:
Chok, S. Macbeth, J. and Warren, C. (2007) Tourism as a Tool for Poverty Alleviation: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Poor Tourism and Implications for Sustainability. In: Michael C Hall (ed.) Pro-poor tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction. Clevedon: Channel View, 34-56.
Frenzal, F. (2012) Slum tourism in the context of the tourism and poverty (relief) debate. Journal of the Geographical Society of Berlin, 144 (2) 117-128.
World Tourism Organisation (WTO) (2002) Tourism and poverty alleviation. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.