Instrumentalización del turismo para el bienestar socioeconómicouna propuesta de aplicación en destinos emergentes en el marco de la Agenda 2030

Abstract

Although the origins of tourism date back to the 18th century with the Grand Tour (Thomas, 2007) or the thermalism (Weisz, 2011), it is not until 1964 that this activity begins to be considered in social policies as a real opportunity for the population. The phenomenon of pro-poor tourism (PPT) would be coined three decades later (Goodwin, 1998; DFID, 1997), as an increasing number of institutions worldwide opted to promote tourism initiatives as a means of transforming the reality of the countries in which they intervene in the field of international cooperation. Given the popularity reached by PPT (Ashley, 2000; Meyer, 2013; Schilcher, 2007), tourism was one of the chosen sectors to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the Agenda 2015. Thus, tourism began to be associated with the alleviation or eradication of poverty (Davidson & Sahli, 2015; Scheyvens, 2007; Spenceley & Goodwin, 2007; Truong et al., 2014; Zhao & Ritchie, 2007). Poverty reduction through tourism seems to become a real option, generating socio-economic benefits in the economy of emerging destinations- Thus, making this sector a catalyst for social inclusion, by generating new opportunities for local communities, which in many cases are excluded from society (Hall, 2007; Zapata et al., 2011) and plunged into a perpetual condition of poverty. Other authors despite sharing the theoretical postulates of the PPT, argue that a weak management of tourism in emerging destinations can also aggravate poverty conditions (Harrison, 2008; Goodwin, 2008). The absence of solid links between foreign capital and the rest of the economy produces a limited and polarized form of development that cannot act as a real stimulus for development (Saarinen & Rogerson, 2014). This is the so-called phenomenon of “leakages” (Meyer, 2013). This consists of a large part of the tourism benefits reverting to the economies of foreign capitals that operate in an emerging destination, limiting the population's access to these benefits. To put an end to this situation, the need to rethink the PPT model is pointed out and thus guarantee the reduction of economic inequalities in a destination (Chok et al., 2007). This situation origins one of the most valuable statements in the history of the PPT: where there is tourism, there is an opportunity to transform and improve the reality of residents. The proven effect of tourism on the gradual alleviation of poverty makes tourism to continue being a key sector in the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Agenda 2030 (UNWTO, 2015). This is based on a model of inclusive and sustained tourism development, which not only ends poverty in all its forms (Scheyvens & Hughes, 2019) (SDG-1), but also allows wealth to be distributed to the entire population, while economic inequalities are gradually reduced (SDG-10) and economic growth fostered (SDG-8). This paradigm shift, from poverty alleviation, to inclusive economic development, also materializes in the literature (Pilkington et al., 2017) giving rise to new academic debates: On the one hand, the causality relationship between tourism and the economic development of a destination begins to be questioned (Mahadevan et al., 2017), since this debate was initiated years ago by Shan & Wilson (2001). Thus, tourism can be conceived as a cause (tourism-led hypotheses) or consequence of socioeconomic wellbeing (economic-led hypotheses) in emerging destinations (UNWTO, 2018). Some authors confirm that tourism is one of the main drivers of economic growth in a country (Bassil et al., 2015; Chiu & Yeh, 2017; Khoshnevis et al., 2017; Kyophilavong et al., 2018; Shahzad et al., 2017; Solarin, 2018; Zuo & Huang, 2018). On the other hand, others authors deny the existence of this causality associated with tourism (Llorca-Rodríguez et al., 2017; Mahadevan et al., 2017). However, some argue that, although tourism contributes to economic growth, this activity is originated when a country reaches a certain level of development (Lin et al., 2019; Nene & Taivan, 2017; Sharif et al., 2017). Other authors even point to the existence of a bidirectional causality between tourism and economic growth (Lin et al., 2019; Perles-Ribes, et al., 2017). The Agenda 2030 also opens a new aspect for tourism in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) (UNWTO, 2015), as a way not only for the protection and sustainable use of fisheries and marine resources (SDG-14), but also as an opportunity to encourage socio-economic development. Thus, the size of the economy begins to be conceived as another of the key factors in the tourism-socioeconomic welfare binomial (Moghal & O'Connell, 2018; UNWTO, 2018). Repercussions of being small make tourism a sector with more impact than in a larger economy, which means that the adverse effects are more dangerous, as well as the benefits generated can also be more significant. This potential was also previously considered by the UN (2014) in the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (S.A.M.O.A) Pathway for pointing tourism as the main key sector for job creation and income generation, poverty reduction, incentive education, and achieve a sustainable development model for these countries. The classic approach to measure the contribution of tourism to socioeconomic development focuses on quantifying the income that population receives (Blake, 2008; Blake et al., 2008; Deller, 2010; Incera & Fernández, 2015). However indicators like the Multidimensional Poverty Index (Alkire & Santos, 2014) and the Human Development Index (Anand & Sen, 1994) integrates a multidimensional approach to measure the effects of tourism on the living conditions of the population (Biagi et al., 2017; Croes & Rivera, 2015; Seckelmann, 2002; Wagle, 2005; Xu, 2017) according to: standard of living, as well as fulfilling education and health needs. Gradually, the concept of quality of life gains place among researches that explore the socio-economic effects of tourism in a destination. According to the most accepted definition, the quality of life is “the ability of people to lead the kind of life they have reasons to value. This is the improvement of the ability to live a better and richer life, through more freedom and opportunities” (Anand & Send, 2000: 90). The literature deals with tourism and quality of life from two different perspectives: objective and subjective dimensions (Ridderstaat et al., 2016). The first one involves objective properties such as conditions and resources, which are independent of a person's conscience (Karimi & Brazier, 2016; Lotfi & Koohsari, 2009). The subjective or emotional dimension of quality of life focuses on the feelings and perceptions that individuals make through their own life experience (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Genc, 2012; Uysal et al., 2016). Thus, the number of researches that consider the perception of the local population as their main object of analysis regarding the socioeconomic benefits is increasing (Kim et al., 2013; Liang & Hui, 2016; Lin et al., 2017; Woo et al., 2015), taking into account that developed countries such as New Zealand (Forbes, 2019) begin to explore the subjective measurement of socioeconomic well-being, as a necessary complement to the analysis of already consolidated macroeconomic indicators such as GDP. This seems logical because despite the objective macroeconomic growth that a country may have, it will hardly be desirable to live in it if it continues having homeless people, a degrading environment, or people with health problems who do not receive the treatment they deserve, among other problems. Finally, the need to continue researching in the field of tourism to measure its effects on the living conditions of the population from a quantitative point of view was pointed out at the I World Conference on Tourism for Development (UNWTO, 2016) The main goal of this dissertation is to quantify the incidence of tourism on the socioeconomic conditions of the population in emerging destinations, within the framework of the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals. In order to fulfill this goal, this dissertation has been carried out according to two approaches: objective and subjective ones. Sample data contains emerging destinations and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). These destinations are characterized because high levels of tourism development and poverty coexist in them (World Bank, 2016; WTTC, 2016). It is estimated that by the year 2030 the continued growth of emerging destinations will lead them to cover a bigger market share than the current top destinations worldwide (UNWTO, 2019). The Tourism for Development Report (UNWTO, 2018) points out the need to quantifying the effects of tourism on wellbeing in these destinations. Regarding SIDS (UN, 2018), these economies are characterized by their small size, intrinsically involving a series of factors that make these destinations more vulnerable: a) smallness: the population, land area and / or GDP are small; b) insularity and remoteness: lack of effective and efficient transportation; c) be prone to natural disasters; d) environmental vulnerability and fragile ecosystems; e) dependence on foreign economies; and f) the need for greater flexibility to adapt to global changes (Moghal & O’Connell, 2018; Naudé et al., 2009). For the case study, Dominican Republic was chosen as an emerging destination and SIDS, as well as it is one of the leading destinations in the Caribbean. In order to fulfill the objective approach, the utilized techniques consist of multivariate descriptive and econometrics (cross sectional and panel data analysis) analyses. Regarding the subjective approach, a fieldwork was carried out consisting of the application of questionnaires and interviews for the study of case of Dominican Republic. This dissertation is based on a compendium of five published papers: The first publication consists of a theoretical review about the origins of pro-poor tourism (PPT), a concept that emerges from international cooperation. The second one measures the impact that tourism has on the poverty conditions of the population from a multidimensional approach, including the standard of living, as well as the coverage of educational and health needs. As a result of this work, a new phenomenon is conceptualized: “The Tourism Poverty Trap” (TPT). This phenomenon is responsible for perpetuating poverty in emerging destination if this activity is not properly managed. The third publication deepens into this previous phenomenon, identifying other proxy variables associated with the poverty conditions of a destination, based on the tourist volume and the interactions of the actors in an emerging destination. The results obtained show that the TPT can be broken if tourism is managed properly. For that reason, the role of public and private initiative becomes crucial to guarantee the population's access to benefits. Given the limited data available about poverty, the fourth publication focused not on existing deprivation (poverty) but on development, thus, the coverage of population´s needs (access to decent living standards, education and health). A total of 28 small island developing States (SIDS) were selected to deepen in the interactions between the actors of a destination and the quality of life that reports on its population along time. The results suggest that tourism development improves the quality of life. However, public resources allocated to tourism contribute four times more than private capital investment in the destination. At this point of the work, the first of the hypotheses was confirmed, proving that tourism influences socioeconomic well-being in the population of the destinations under study. The need for a subjective approach involved addressing a case study in the Dominican Republic based on a psychometric analysis for the fifth publication. The results revealed a remarkable coverage of the personal expectations of the population linked to the tourism sector generating direct benefits. However, there is no evidence about the long-term benefits perceived. This implies that hypothesis 2 can only be partially validated, to the extent that the perceived quality of life does not seem to meet the long-term expectations of tourism professionals. The conclusions of this dissertation suggest the need to particularize in the real situation of every destination to identify the key aspects that could slow down or impede tourism may foster socioeconomic wellbeing. To do this, destinations should be analyzed according to: 1) the direct and indirect economic effects that tourism has on the general economy; 2) the structure of economy according to the degree of access of population to tourism benefits; 3) the effects of public initiative on tourism-value chain and wellbeing and 4) the effects of local and foreign capital investment on wellbeing. In order to make a holistic analysis, this work has also revealed the need to deepen in both objective and subjective dimensions. As future line research, it is convenient to measure not only the suitability of tourism as a driver of socioeconomic wellbeing, but also the “cleanliness” of these effects in comparison to developing others economic sectors in emerging destinations. Thus, matters such as climate change, CO2 emissions and footprints and degradation of environment must be considered.