Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
reducing poverty, but rather because many approaches to PPT tend to overlook signifi cant
environmental, social and political issues: 'the pro-poor development paradigm . . . is consid-
erably circumscribed in its premise of economic growth as the foundation of development'
(Mowforth and Munt, 2003: 34). This conclusion was also reached in a broader analysis of
the 'poverty consensus' (Storey
et al.
, 2005).
The embracing of PPT by some academics and consultants has also drawn comparisons
with the uncritical enthusiasm of some for ecotourism (Butcher, 2007). In the South African
context Brennan and Allen (2001: 219) contended that ecotourism was 'essentially an ideal,
promoted by well-fed whites'. As Scheyvens (2007a: 232) asked, 'Could the same be said of
PPT, or is it likely to deliver genuine, wide-ranging benefi ts to the poor?' Indeed, Scheyvens'
own work highlights the importance of connecting poverty alleviation approaches to broader
issues of empowerment and the role of place in development processes (e.g. Scheyvens, 2002,
2005) in order for pro-poor approaches to succeed.
Many of the issues raised in the PPT debate have also been extended by geographers to the
developed countries as well, particularly with respect to broader discussions of welfare (e.g.
Hall and Brown, 2006) and ethics (Duffy and Smith, 2003; Fennell, 2006a, 2006b; Fennell
and Malloy, 2007). However, they also have their intellectual origins in the development of
concepts of sustainability, alternative tourism and ecotourism (Saarinen, 2006), although the
initial promise of such concepts has arguably not been met, given that sustainability has
remained a focal point for much geographical research (e.g. Aronsson, 2000; Butler, 1999;
Hall and Richards, 2003; Saarinen, 2006; Teo, 2003; Weaver, 2006), though with new focus
on issues such as ecolabelling (Gössling, 2006; Reiser and Simmons, 2005) and ecological
footprint analysis (Gössling
et al.
, 2002). However, arguably one of the most signifi cant devel-
opments, and one that provides interesting links between human and physical geography, is
that of climate and global environmental change (GEC).
The relationship between climate and tourism has long been a signifi cant research theme
that bridges human and physical geographical interests (e.g. Gómez-Martín, 2005; Harlfi nger,
1991; Mieczkowski, 1985). Given improved datasets and methodological improvements, a
new generation of climate and tourism indices (de Freitas
et al.
, 2004) as well as evaluations
of tourism demand in relation to climatic factors have been developed (Gómez-Martín,
2004, 2006). However, increasingly the focus of the relationships between climate and
tourism and recreation has shifted to be primarily related to climate change (D. Scott
et al.
,
2004), and often with respect to specifi c at-risk environments, such as alpine (Scott,
2006) and polar areas (M. Johnston, 2006) and wetlands (Wall, 1998), or climate-related
attractions and activities, such as skiing (e.g. Bicknell and McManus, 2006; König, 1999;
Scott
et al.
, 2003, 2007a, 2007b) or nature-based tourism (e.g. Scott
et al.
, 2007a, 2007b).
Nevertheless, substantial uncertainty surrounds the long-term implications of climate change
for tourism fl ows, patterns and destinations (Gössling and Hall, 2006a), especially given the
capacity of industry, markets and destinations to adapt to new conditions in both generating
areas and in destination areas (Gössling
et al.
, 2006; Hall, 2006d; Saarinen and Tervo, 2006;
Simpson
et al.
, 2008).
Although economics has often been a focal point of public attention on climate change
(e.g. Stern, 2006), geographers have historically played a major role in examining the inter-
relationships between tourism and climate change (Scott
et al.
, 2005a, 2005b), both as indi-
viduals and disciplinary-based research teams or as part of multidisciplinary research
programmes (e.g. Peeters, 2007; Sievanen
et al.
, 2005). Indeed, geographers have often tried
to expand the framework of concern by emphasising the extent to which climate is only one,
albeit highly signifi cant, dimension of GEC (Gössling, 2002; Gössling and Hall, 2006b).
