Pro-poor tourism: putting poverty at the heart of the tourism agenda.

By C. Ashley, C. Boyd, H. Goodwin. 2000

424 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/212fe814aa1c3fcfc83e62dc76cfd47a9f840d90

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. C. Rogerson
2. D. Meyer
3. C. Michael Hall
4. Robertico Croes
5. J. Momsen
6. L. A. Winters
7. W. Zhao
8. N. McCulloch

Citations in the corpus

• Lao Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: Community-Based Tourism and the Private Sector (2007, background): “…Partnership1 defined pro-poor tourism as ‘tourism that generates net benefits for the poor’ (Ashley et al., 2001: 2) and implemented a series of case studies designed to test experimental methods of poverty alleviation by stimulating local involvement, partnerships and procurement (Ashley, 2000).”
• Pro-Poor local economic development in South Africa: The role of pro-poor tourism (2006, background): “Finally, compared with many other economic sectors, a higher proportion of the benefits from tourism, in terms of jobs or entrepreneurship opportunities, accrue to women (Ashley et al., 2000; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001).”
• Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives (2004, background): “…forms of post-Fordist tourism (Torres, 2002a) such as ‘sustainable tourism’, ‘responsible tourism’ and ‘ecotourism’, although these have tended to emphasize environmental sustainability over social and livelihood issues (DFID, 1999b; Ashley et al., 2000; Overseas Development Institute (ODI), 2001).”
• Tourism as a Tool for Poverty Alleviation: A Critical Analysis of ‘Pro-Poor Tourism’ and Implications for Sustainability (2007, background): “PPT’s underlying principles – such as a holistic livelihoods approach (Ashley et al., 2000) – echo those of sustainable development.”
• Pro-Poor Tourism: Do ‘Tourism Exchanges Benefit Primarily the Countries of the South’? (2007, result): “PPT advocates tend to suggest that there are qualitative differences with respect to its approach with respect to the poor (e.g. Ashley et al., 2000).”
• Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: An Integrative Research Framework (2007, background): “Traditionally, regional economic growth is predominantly set as the premier target of local tourism development, while poverty alleviation is either considered a subgoal or a natural outcome of regional economic growth (Ashley et al., 2000; Deloitte & Touche et al., 1999).”
• Cointegration and Causality between Tourism and Poverty Reduction (2008, background): “…pro-poor impact of tourism results from the enhanced opportunity to generate mass employment and from the creation of the opportunity to allow the most vulnerable groups of the society to participate in the production of tourism goods and services (Ashley, Goodwin, and Roe 2000; Encontre 2001).”
• The impacts of tourism investment on rural communities: Three case studies in South Africa (2002, background): “Pro-poor tourism strategies represent a reaction to this laissez-faire approach, and highlight the need to introduce speci c mechanisms for ensuring that the bene ts of tourism growth also accrue to the poor (Ashley et al, 2000).”
• Exploring the Tourism-Poverty Nexus (2007, methodology): “focused on analysing the theoretical basis of PPT and examining case studies of tourism in practice (Ashley et al., 2001).”
• Pro-Poor Tourism: From Leakages to Linkages. A Conceptual Framework for Creating Linkages between the Accommodation Sector and ‘Poor’ Neighbouring Communities (2007, background): “…tourism focuses on how tourism affects the livelihoods of the poor and on how positive impacts can be enhanced through pro-poor tourism strategies (e.g. Ashley et al., 2000, 2001; Ashley & Mitchell, 2005; Bah & Goodwin, 2003; DfID, 1999; Goodwin, 2000; Roe & Urquhart, 2001; Shah & Gupta, 2000).”