Slum tourism

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=Q3GWfPUS9SvUNM&tbnid=DrWi6tJ0qAnXIM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://thegipsygiraffe.com/category/travel/slum-tourism/&ei=ZtbpU-qTLcSe0QXiioHwAg&psig=AFQjCNH6734zshWrAdFNxGjynIbQshBbhA&ust=1407919023110759

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=Q3GWfPUS9SvUNM&tbnid=bhp1xdOtWUCQMM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://thegipsygiraffe.com/category/travel/slum-tourism/&ei=idbpU96GMobB0QW86oHQAw&psig=AFQjCNH6734zshWrAdFNxGjynIbQshBbhA&ust=1407919023110759

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=CyBjZb1vXd-J9M&tbnid=VhDZVPW-xmW9nM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2011/06/slumming-it-nineteenth-century-style-part-1-we-came-to-gawk.html&ei=XdnpU7mtIYXJ0QWHvIGYCw&psig=AFQjCNEETsZjqicl9Tj4jk29R3xKimbhcA&ust=1407920828130665

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=CyBjZb1vXd-J9M&tbnid=VhDZVPW-xmW9nM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2011/06/slumming-it-nineteenth-century-style-part-1-we-came-to-gawk.html&ei=XdnpU7mtIYXJ0QWHvIGYCw&psig=AFQjCNEETsZjqicl9Tj4jk29R3xKimbhcA&ust=1407920828130665

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=LljnB2Eq9qZf0M&tbnid=HwrseONK_-nu0M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slum_tourism&ei=jNnpU5SlEce70QWr54H4DA&psig=AFQjCNEETsZjqicl9Tj4jk29R3xKimbhcA&ust=1407920828130665

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=LljnB2Eq9qZf0M&tbnid=HwrseONK_-nu0M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slum_tourism&ei=jNnpU5SlEce70QWr54H4DA&psig=AFQjCNEETsZjqicl9Tj4jk29R3xKimbhcA&ust=1407920828130665

http://demilitarize.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Beyond-the-mountain-of-trash.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19546792

https://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Slum-Tourism-Report-print-web.pdf

https://kiberatours.com/

http://realitytoursandtravel.com/slum-tour.php

http://www.smokeytours.com/

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g298573-d5537044-Reviews-Smokey_Tours-Manila_Metro_Manila_Luzon.html

http://uk.businessinsider.com/manila-worlds-most-crowded-city-2016-8?r=US&IR=T

http://www.realitygives.org/about.php

http://realitytoursandtravel.com/images/money-RTT-RGi.pdf

http://realitytoursandtravel.com/why-reality.php

http://realitytoursandtravel.com/dharavi-tour.php

http://realitytoursandtravel.com/why-reality.php

http://realitytoursandtravel.com/index.php#tours

https://www.packforapurpose.org/destinations/south-asia/india/reality-tours-travel/

http://www.myendnoteweb.com/EndNoteWeb.html?func=new&

Tourism Analysis

Case Study

Slum Tourism: Development, Globalization and the Implications of a new Trend in Tourism

Dr Kostas Tomazos

October 2014

“Tourism is one of the few ways that you or I are ever going to understand what poverty means” Weiner (2008: 1)

Discuss…

 Slum tourism can be described as a form of poverty tourism where tourists visit poor communities in deprived areas (Dovey and King, 2012; Ma, 2010).

 Slum tours commonly include visits to workplaces and homes of residents, schools and community projects. Slum tourism comes in many forms all across the world and currently includes tours of favelas in Brazil, townships in South Africa, and slums in India, villas in Argentina and poor areas in many other countries in the Global South.

Introduction…

“Slum tourism is one of the fastest-growing niche tourism segments in the world, but it

is also one of the most controversial.” (Ma, 2010: 3)

 Slum tourism originates from the 1800s when the term “slumming” was used to describe wealthy people in society who visited poorer urban areas in their leisure time; the roots lie in London (Steinbrink, 2012; Dürr, 2012; Seaton, 2012).

 It was in 1884 when the term “slumming” was recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary (Loftus, 2009).

 During the 19th century journalists made their names by writing of their slum travels (Seaton, 2012). The “hobo” and “tramp” cultures in slumming offered an escape from normal life for the wealthy (Seaton, 2012).

 Slumming then developed in the USA where slum tours became very much commercialised – it became open to a wider range of people who where willing to consume this tourism product (Steinbrink, 2012; Seaton, 2012).

Short History…

 Tourist Guide books  Guided slum tours  New York, Chicago and

San Francisco

Wealthy tourists from London imported slumming eager to visit and compare the poorer areas in New York with ‘their’ slums at home

Not just about Poverty…

• On the one hand, slum tourism

developed in areas with social and

economic problems.

• However, historically in places like Little

Italy, Chinatown and other ghettos in

New York City, people were secluded

because they were minority immigrant

groups (Conforti, 1996; Seaton, 2012).

• Slumming tours mainly took place in the

urban areas where the new immigrant

groups had settled because of their rich

culture (Seaton, 2012).

Some authors see slum tourism as authentic or reality tourism (Freire-Medeiros, 2009; Frisch, 2012) where tourists encounter urban realism. On the other hand, some see it as cultural or ethnic tourism (Ramchander, 2007; Jaguaribe and Hetherington, 2004, cited in Rolfes, 2010: 422).

Slums Falling out of Fashion…

 Eventually these deprived areas were becoming a problem for economic development and governments began removing them from the city borders (Seaton, 2012).

 The justification for this was that tourists would not want to visit cities that were associated with poverty and unsanitary conditions (Freire-Medeiros, 2009).

 Existing literature on the expansion of slum tourism in the developing world centres on the evolution of the trend in a few distinct areas: South Africa, Brazil, India, Kenya and Mexico

 Steinbrink (2012) states that figures indicate slum tourism is already a highly professionalised business in South Africa and Brazil.

 Steinbrink et al (2012) discuss the development of slum tourism in these areas as well as minor forms of the trend developing in Argentina, Namibia, Egypt, Indonesia, Jamaica and Thailand.

From Slumming to Slum Tourism…

 Tourism in South Africa’s townships has developed hugely since the end of the apartheid era.

 Government policy in South Africa now supports the stream of tourism into townships (Frenzel and Koens, 2012).

 In townships tourism started off as a “niche market” for people with specific political interests (Rolfes, 2010:428).

 Emergence of township tourism is said to be a phenomenon of the post apartheid period after South Africa’s move towards a democracy in 1994 (Rogerson, 2004; Stenbrink, 2012; Steinbrink et al, 2012).

South Africa…

 In Brazil, tourism has grown and evolved in the larger, main favelas and has become a key part of tourist exploration (Frisch, 2012).

 The increase in favela tours has been highlighted as an effect of the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992 (Frenzel, 2012). Freire-Medeiros (2009) relates this rising popularity of favela tours to the increasing demand for alternative forms of travelling referring to the desire for “reality tours” and the “extreme other” (p.581).

 Frisch (2012) explains that the favela has had to undertake many stages of progression for it to be transformed into a tourist attraction.

Brazil…

Although these areas of poverty can provide authentic and genuine experiences, some considerable transformation has to take place in order for them to become valued tourist areas. This can therefore allow questions to arise about the authenticity of certain slum tours.

 Slum tours in India are very much a

new phenomenon and this is evident

as only a few individual tour operators

detail the content of the tours on the

internet (Rolfes, 2010).

 In Mumbai slum tours are provided

by one main agency Reality Tours

and Travel which has offered tours to

Dharavi since 2006 (Rolfes, 2010;

Ma, 2010).

 However, slum tourism in India is

noticeably expanding and this is said

to be fuelled mainly by media

attention from films such as Slumdog

Millionaire (Steinbrink, 2012).

India…

 The Kibera slum in Nairobi, is

thought to have become

involved in slum tours in a

similar pattern to Rio de Janeiro,

after the World Social Forum

meetings in 2007 (Frenzel,

2012; Steinbrink et al, 2012).

 Steinbrink et al (2012)

additionally observe that today

there are a range of tour

operators organising slum tours

in the Kibera slum.

Kenya…

 Fieldwork by Dürr (2012) investigates a form of slum tourism that takes place around a garbage dump in the town of Mazatlan, Mexico

 This tour is carried out by a non-profit based evangelical church which takes tourists on an “enlightening, meaningful and engaging experience” (Dürr, 2012: 341).

 This example of slum tourism aiming to educate people and support local communities is free of charge and emphasises variations in slum tours.

Mexico…

As with all new trends, queries arise as to why the trend has occurred at this time and in this social context. The same questions are applied to new forms of tourism (Steinbrink et al, 2012).

Do you have any ideas?

Drivers of Slum Tourism…

 Freire-Medeiros (2009: 582) defines two types of reality tourism: “dark” and “social”.

 Slum tourism comes under the heading of “social” tourism - differing from dark tourism - where participation and authenticity is sold in a way that counteracts mass tourism (Freire-Medeiros, 2009).

 Such experiences of social and dark tourism are popular with travellers as they seek more experiences that are “interactive” and “adventurous” (Freire-Medeiros, 2009:582).

 The product given to tourists may be different in each case; however the motivations for going on both types of reality tours are very similar.

Reality Tourism…

 Frenzel (2012) observes that certain events throughout the world have prompted slum tourism in certain areas.

 Regarding South Africa, the literature suggests that township tours began because of apartheid and the political revolution that took place against a racist government (Rogerson, 2004; Rolfes, 2010; Stenbrink, 2012; Steinbrink et al, 2012).

 This differs from the cases of Brazil and Kenya where it is proposed that events drawing attention to global issues generated the practice of slum tourism.

 Frenzel (2012) suggests that the Rio Summit in 1992 played a significant role in generating favela tours.

 Similarly, it is discussed that the World Social Forum in 2007 initiated a rise in slum tourism in Nairobi (Frenzel and Koens, 2012).

Societal Changes and Events…

 The media today have created interest amidst audiences who want to witness these locations in real life rather than on screen

 Recently certain films have gained international attention illustrating slum life: Slumdog Millionare, City of God and District 9. Slum tourism has increased in demand as a tourist product in these areas because of such films (Freire-Medeiros, 2009; Ma 2010; Rolfes, 2010; Dyson, 2012).

 Subsequently, a link can be made with slum tourism to film tourism research in Mumbai, particularly due to the release of Slumdog Millionaire (Frenzel and Koens, 2012).

 In addition, documentaries shown in the United States have given viewers desirable images of favelas (Freire-Medeiros, 2009).

Films and Popular Media…

Hannam and Knox (2010) stress that tourists are attracted to a destination because they are strange and out of the ordinary and such images are broadly publicized in the mass media

 Globalisation has allowed new opportunities for developments in tourism (Reisinger, 2009).

 New consumers are showing behaviour patterns away from mass-market package holidays and as a result of improvements in communication, consumers have been disclosed to different cultures, widening their ideas and viewpoints (Reisinger, 2009).

 Cejas and De Mexico (2006) note that poor and deprived environments in the third world have become a commodity for tourists in developing countries because of globalisation.

 Additionally, Urry (1990) recognises that globalisation is facilitating the creation of new forms of tourism.

Globalization…

Slum tourism can open windows to new ways of seeing and thinking.

Slum tourism seems certain to open “shock, horror, delight and political

activism…” to “…Western eyes” (Dovey and King, 2012:292).

Some tour guides say that too many companies operate “safari style”

tours with busloads of tourists taking photos and gazing at the poverty

(Ramchander, 2007)

Can tourists make any difference at all through slum tourism?

Food for Thought…

“…these tours cross the boundary of conventional tourism; they bring the contrasts between the First and Third worlds… into sharp relief” (Dyson, 2012:271

In no more than 3,000 words (tables and figures

do not count) you have to build a case study on a

slum tour (operator) that organizes tours at a slum

of your choice.

The case study should include:

a) A literature section on slum tourism

b) A information section on the slum itself

c) A very brief description of the methods you

used to build your case study

d) A presentation of your findings

e) What do your findings mean?

f) Conclusion

Your Assignment…

 Ambiguity surrounding types of tours and the diversity in experiences offered.

 Different causes and drivers of slum tourism in different areas across the globe.

 Slum tourist motivations reflecting a new type of tourist preference and new niche form of tourism.

 The opportunities and risks that slum tourism may entail

Some Ideas…

Theme Issue

Reality See the real India, Walk into the street life of Delhi, Experience a part of Kenya unseen by most tourists, Reveal the true

essence of the country, Show tourists the city through the eyes of the locals, Get a glimpse of this gritty side of the

country, Real Indonesian culture, Experience and discover the real Jakarta, See for yourself how the people of South

Africa live

Real Time You’ll witness children playing, You’ll witness the heart of small scale industry, You will see their homes, their work

places, Visitors can see children in their classes and in activities, Experience a day in the life of locals, Interact with locals

as they go about their daily routine

Optimism Many rags-to-riches stories, You will see their spirit, A city of hope, A new understanding about aspects of the country’s

culture, Experience the lively streets, Experience vibrant soul of the township, Feel the spirit of togetherness, sharing,

giving and unity among the people of townships, There is a strong community spirit

Chaos You’ll witness a riot of activity, from small industries to children playing, An area bustling with activity, See residents

make the most of what they have

Local/community life Tourists will feel the sense of community and spirit that exists, Friendliest slum in the world, Hear traditional music,

Purchase hand made arts and crafts

A bit of help…

Language used on Websites…

Wanderlust/escapism Experience a place unseen by most tourists, New understanding of a different culture, See different aspects of another society,

Historical and social education about the slum

Off the beaten track/look behind the

scenes

Discovering places that are too hard usually to discover as a tourist, Must stay in the car in the red light area, See people in their

homes and workplaces, A journey through the back streets of the city, The dangers make it hard to see what really goes on in these

areas of poverty

Unique experience Add a dash of colour to your stay, Rags-to-riches stories, Unique way of providing an insight into lives of street children, Aim to

provide a unique and memorable experience of the country, Experience the area in a new and exciting way, Tour offers intimacy

that would otherwise not be available to tourists, Offer an alternative means of tourism, A once in a lifetime travel adventure, Take

a journey into a world of colour, contrast, unique cultural flavour and a new understanding of South Africa, It’s a must do for every

visitor to Cape Town to experience a day in the life of locals

Exclusivity Group sizes of maximum 5 or 6 people, Groups are kept to a small number to ensure a personal visit, Private tours available to be

individually designed for you to do and see as much or as little as you please, Aim to offer a more personal touristic experience,

Private tour hidden from mass media, This form of tourism is a new idea in the world

Aid in poverty alleviation/improving lives An opportunity for street children to improve their communication skills, Donate money and clothes at the end of the tour, Know

that you can make a difference, Contemplate adopting or fostering a child

Case Study Slum Tourism

Reading List and Suggestions

Achwal, N. (2010). A new brand of poverty tourism. NextBillion, 6 April. Available from:

http://www.nextbillion.net/blogpost.aspx?blogid=1749 [Accessed 27th November 2012].

Ashley, C. and Haysom, G. (2006). From philanthropy to a different way of doing business:

strategies and challenges in integrating pro-poor approaches into tourism business.

Development Southern Africa, 23(2), pp.265-280.

Ashley, C., Roe, D., and Goodwin, H. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making tourism

work for the poor: A review of experience (No. 1). Nottingham, UK: The Russell Press.

Baptista, J.A. (2012) Tourism of poverty: the value of being poor in the non-governmental

order. In Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, power and ethics (pp.125-

143). London: Routledge.

Basu, K. (2012). Slum tourism: for the poor, by the poor. In Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (Eds.),

Slum Tourism: Poverty, power and ethics (pp.66-82). London: Routledge.

Boorstin, D. J. 1961. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper &

Row.

Butcher, J. (2003). The moralisation of tourism: Sun, sand and saving the world? London:

Routledge.

Cejas, M. I., and De Mexico, E. C. (2006). Tourism in Shantytowns and Slums: A New"

Contact Zone" in the Era of Globalization. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(2),

pp.224.

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. Current Issues in

Tourism, 10(2-3), pp.144-165.

Cocks, C. (2001). Doing the town: the rise of urban tourism in the United States, 1850-1915.

California: University of California Press.

Conforti, J. M. (1996). Ghettos as tourism attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4),

pp.830-842.

Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. London: Verso.

Diekmann, A. and Hannam, K. (2012). Touristic mobilities in India’s slum spaces. Annals of

Tourism Research, 39(3), pp.1315–1336.

Dovey, K. and King, R. (2012). Informal urbanism and the taste for slums. Tourism

Geographies, 14(2), pp.275-293.

Dürr, E. (2012). Encounters over garbage: tourists and lifestyle migrants in Mexico. Tourism

Geographies, 14(2), pp.339-355.

Dyson, P. (2012). Slum tourism: Representing and interpreting ‘reality’in Dharavi, Mumbai.

Tourism Geographies, 14(2), pp.254-274.

Freire-Medeiros, B. (2009). The favela and its touristic transits. Geoforum, 40(4), pp.580-

588.

Frenzel, F. (2012.) Beyond ‘Othering’: the political roots of slum tourism. In Frenzel, F. and

Koens, K. (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, power and ethics (pp. 49-65). London: Routledge.

Frenzel, F., and Koens, K. (2012). Slum tourism: developments in a young field of

interdisciplinary tourism research. Tourism Geographies, 14(2), pp.195-212.

Frisch, T. (2012.) Glimpses of Another World: The Favela as a Tourist Attraction. Tourism

Geographies, 14(2), pp.320-338.

Gentleman, A. (2006). Slum tours: a day trip too far? The Observer, 7 May. Available from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19546792 [Accessed 13th January 2013].

Jaguaribe, B. and Hetherington, K. (2004). Favela Tours: Indistinct and maples

representations of the real in Rio de Janeiro. In Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (Eds.), Tourism

mobilities: Places to play, places in play (pp. 155–166). London and New York: Routledge.

Koens, K. (2012). Competition, cooperation and collaboration: business relations and power

in township tourism. In Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, power and

ethics (pp.83-100). London: Routledge.

Koens, K., Frenzel, F. and Steinbrink, M. (2012). Keep on Slumming? In Frenzel, F. and

Koens, K. (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, power and ethics (pp.232-240). London:

Routledge.

Loftus, M. (2009). Slum tours: real or tacky? National Geographic Traveler, March.

Available from: http://traveler.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/feature/slum-tours-text.

[Accessed 13th January 2013].

Ma, B. (2010). A trip into the controversy: A study of slum tourism travel motivations.

Undergraduate Humanities Forum 2009-2010: Connections, Penn Arts & Sciences.

Available from: http://repository.upenn.edu/uhf_2010/12 [Accessed 25th October 2012]

Mekawy, M. A. (2012). Responsible slum tourism: Egyptian experience. Annals of Tourism

Research, 39(4), pp.2092-2113.

Melik, J. (2012). Slum tourism: Patronising or social enlightenment? BBC News, Business, 24

September. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19546792 [Accessed 13th

January 2013].

Meschkank, J. (2011). Investigations into slum tourism in Mumbai: poverty tourism and the

tensions between different constructions of reality. GeoJournal, 76(1), pp.47-62.

Meschkank, J. (2012). Negotiating poverty: the interplay between Dharavi’s production and

consumption as a tourist destination. In Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (Eds.), Slum Tourism:

Poverty, power and ethics (pp.144-158). London: Routledge.

Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (2009). Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalisation

and new tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge.

Ramchander, P. (2007). Township tourism: Blessing or blight? The case of Soweto in South

Africa. In Richards, G (Ed.), Cultural tourism: Global and local perspectives (pp. 39–67).

New York: Haworth Press.

Rogerson, C. M. (2004). Urban tourism and small tourism enterprise development in

Johannesburg: The case of township tourism. GeoJournal, 60(3), pp.249–257.

Rolfes, M. (2010). Poverty tourism: theoretical reflections and empirical findings regarding

an extraordinary form of tourism. GeoJournal, 75(5), pp.421-442.

Rolfes, M., Steinbrink, M. and Uhl, C. (2009). Townships as attraction: an empirical study of

township tourism in Cape Town (Vol. 46). Universitätsverlag Potsdam.

Ryan, C. (2002). Equity, management, power sharing and sustainability: issues of the ‘new

tourism’. Tourism management, 23(1), pp.17-26.

Seaton, T. (2012). Wanting to live with common people…? The literary evolution of

slumming. In Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, power and ethics

(pp.21-48). London: Routledge.

Selinger, E. and Outterson, K. (2009). The Ethics of Poverty Tourism, Boston University

School of Law Working Paper No. 09-29. Available at

http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/

documents/SelingerEOuttersonK06-02-09.pdf (accessed 31 October 2012).

Steinbrink, M. (2012). ‘We did the Slum!’–Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective.

Tourism Geographies, 14(2), pp.213-234.

Steinbrink, M., Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (2012). Development and globalization of a new

trend in tourism. In Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, power and

ethics (pp.1-18). London: Routledge.

Tourism Concern (2012). Slum/poverty/favela tourism. Available from:

http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/slum-tourism.html [Accessed 15th January 2013].

Tourism Student’s Virtual Conference (TSVC) (2012). Travel motivations of slum tourists.

Available from: http://www.tsvc.lincoln.ac.uk/papers/submission.php?paper=169 Accessed

[1st December 2012].

UN-HABITAT (2003). The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003,

London: Earthscan.

United Nations (2013). Millennium Development Goals. Available From:

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ [Accessed 15th January 2013].

Urry, J. (1990). The Consumption of Tourism. Sociology, 24(1), pp.23-35.

Weiner, E. (2008). Slum visits: Tourism or voyeurism? New York Times, 9 March. Available

from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/travel/09heads.html?pagewanted=all [Accessed

25th November 2012].

Whyte, K.P., Selinger, E. and Outterson, K. (2011). Poverty tourism and the problem of

consent. Journal of Global Ethics, 7(3), pp.337-348.

Williams, C. (2008). Ghettotourism and voyeurism, or challenging stereotypes and raising

consciousness? Literary and non-literary forays into the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro. Bulletin of

Latin American Research, 27(4), pp.483–500.

Slum tourism: Patronising or social enlightenment?

By James Melik Reporter, Business Daily, BBC World Service

There is a growing trend for tourists to seek out poverty-blighted neighbourhoods when they go on holiday, to get a sense of real life for the poorest communities there.

An increasing number of tourists are searching for something they cannot get at the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York.

This controversial trend has been dubbed "slum tourism".

Six years ago in India, Krishna Pujari and his British friend Chris Way began Reality Tours and Travel, to organise tours in Dharavi - arguably Asia's biggest slum.

Sitting on one of Mumbai's prime sites, Dharavi is the city's underbelly, where squalor mixes with enterprise.

The area is dotted with small businesses and recycling units, sitting alongside residential enclaves.

It produces goods worth $1bn ($620m) and a lot of its products are exported and yet, most of its one million inhabitants are impoverished and live in what the outside world may call inhuman conditions.

Dharavi is essentially a magnet for migrants from poor rural areas in other parts of the country, who travel to Mumbai to earn a livelihood for themselves and often for their family back home.

They are mostly garbage pickers, taxi drivers, manual labourers - the nameless, faceless people who keep a largely thankless city afloat

Diverse opinions

"If you think this is just poverty, you will see that only," says Mr Pujari, "but in the poverty there is much to be learnt."

He tries to show a positive side of the slum, to people who think slums are just about poverty, danger or begging.

He explains how his company is a social business with 80% of all profits given to its sister organisation - the charity Reality Gives.

"We do we do this because a large percentage of our income is generated through the Dharavi tours and we felt that it was right to put most of the money back," Mr Pujari asserts.

Tourists do not see the organised slum tour as an example of exploiting poverty.

Florence Martina, a tourist from France, is not apologetic about touring Dharavi.

"These people are fighting against poverty, they are active in building some commerce and trade," she says.

Meanwhile, Christian Hansen from San Francisco says: "The most interesting thing is the working conditions of the people. I didn't expect them to be so industrial."

But local people say they do not benefit from slum tours.

"It doesn't help me at all," says Prasad, who is a trader in Dharavi.

"We see foreigners several times a week. Sometimes they come and talk to us, some offer us a bit of cash, but we don't get anything from these tours," he laments.

Wrong message

Not everyone is happy about how their city is portrayed to the outside world.

"The educated urban Indian is a tad sensitive about how certain attributes of Indian history, society and culture are portrayed in the western media," says Mumbai resident Hemanth Gopinath.

"The Oscar-winning film Slum Dog Millionaire, for all its success, was not well received by certain sections of the popular press in India," he recalls.

"And more recently, Oprah Winfrey drew a lot of flak for how, many felt, she was insensitive in her exchanges with a family in Dharavi," he notes.

He maintains that any criticism against the tour company in question, is that they highlight a negative aspect of the country to foreign citizens and also possibly engage in profiteering at the expense of the underprivileged.

"However, if they can positively impact even a minuscule section of the population of Dharavi, I would support it," he says.

Fatal attraction

What is it about the slums that attracts hordes of tourists each year?

Dr Malte Steinbrink at the University of Osnabruck in Germany, says: "We are currently witnessing a tremendous growth in slum tourism worldwide, especially in the global south."

He notes that the trend started in Victorian London over 150 years ago, when people from the London upper class were curious to see what happened in the East End.

In the global south it is a quite recent phenomenon - starting at the beginning of the 1990s in South Africa after the end of apartheid, when Nelson Mandela was released from prison.

"Tourists came to South Africa and wanted to see the townships and places of the apartheid repression and Mandela's house - so it began as a niche tourism for tourists with a special political interest," says Dr Steinbrink.

About 300-400,000 tourists a year visit the townships - between one-fifth and one-quarter of all tourists who visit South Africa.

"If we ask why slum tourism is on the rise at the moment, one could assume it is because there are more and more slums and more people who live in them worldwide," he says.

According to the World Tourist Organisation, one billion people are expected to travel in 2012, so the increase in the number of travellers opting for slum tourism is likely to rise.

NOW PLEASE REFLECT ON WHAT YOU HAVE READ AND COMMENT ON THE PROLIFERATION AND POPULARITY OF SLUM TOURISM!

161DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

Zusammenfassung Geführte touristische Touren in die städtischen Armutsviertel lassen sich in vielen Metropolen des Globalen Südens beobachten, z. B. in Kapstadt, Rio de Janeiro oder Mumbai. Das wachsende globale Interesse am Slum- tourismus wird von einer Debatte begleitet, in der oft mit moralischen Kategorien argumentiert wird und die bisher noch nicht wissenschaftlich untersucht worden ist. In diesem Beitrag soll nicht danach gefragt werden, ob Slumtourismus moralisch vertretbar ist oder nicht. Allerdings soll auf der Metaebene diskutiert werden, wie im Slumtourismus als eine soziale Praxis moralische Kategorien mitgeführt werden. Dazu sol- len Aussagen von Touristen und Touranbietern über die moralische Vertretbarkeit der Touren ausgewertet werden. Ein besonderes Augenmerk soll zudem auf das Verhältnis von Moral und Raum gelegt werden. Die Grundthese des Beitrags lautet, dass die moralische Bewertung des Slumtourismus mit spezifischen Per­ spektiven auf Slums und Armut zusammenhängt. Dies soll anhand von zwei Fallstudien dargestellt werden, die (1) in Kapstadt (2007 und 2008) sowie (2) in Mumbai (2009) durchgeführt wurden.

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai Julia Burgold1 and Manfred Rolfes1

1 Universität Potsdam, Institut für Geographie, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany, [email protected], [email protected]

Manuscript submitted: 29 May 2012 / Accepted for publication: 08 July 2013 / Published online: 19 November 2013

Abstract Sightseeing in the poorest quarters of southern hemisphere cities has been observed occurring in Cape Town, Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai and many other cities. The increasing global interest in touring poor urban environments is accom- panied by a strong morally charged debate; so far, this debate has not been critically addressed. This article avoids asking if slum tourism is good or bad, but instead seeks a second-order observation, i.e. to investigate under what conditions the social praxis of slum tourism is considered as good or bad, by processing information on esteem or dis- esteem among tourists and tour providers. Special attention is given to any relation between morality and place, and the thesis posited is that the moral charging of slum tourism is dependent on the presence of specific preconceived notions of slums and poverty. This shall be clarified by means of references to two empirical case studies carried out in (1) Cape Town in 2007 and 2008 and (2) Mumbai in 2009.

Burgold, Julia and Manfred Rolfes: Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai. – DIE ERDE 144 (2): 161-174

DOI: 10.12854/erde-144-12

Vol. 144, No. 2 · Research article

D I E E R D E Journal of the

Geographical Society of Berlin

Keywords Slum tourism, township tourism, morality, place

162 DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

1. Introducing considerations regarding slum tourism and its morality

Slum tourism has emerged and become successfully established in many cities the world over. The phenom- enon has historical forerunners in the Global North (Steinbrink and Pott 2010); however, in the Global South1 it is only since the 1990s that slum tourism has been run professionally in cities such as Cape Town, Johannesburg, Rio de Janeiro and Mumbai. Apart from these prominent examples, slum tourism also occurs in Mexico City (Dürr 2012; Dürr and Jaffe 2012), Del- hi, Nairobi, Windhoek and Manila. Slum tours have become highly organised and attract people in their thousands. In 2006, in Cape Town alone, township tours were attended by approximately 300,000 people (AP 2007). Here, more than 40 township tour provid- ers have established themselves in a growing market, and tours run to almost all of the townships. In Rio de Janeiro, professionally conducted favela tourism is also a growing market, albeit less significantly in terms of visitor numbers than in Cape Town. In 2009, the most frequently visited favela in Rio, Rocinha, had approximately 40,000 visitors (Freire-Medeiros 2009: 580). The number of tourists visiting Rio’s favelas is expected to increase as the Brazilian police attempts to clear out favela drug gangs ahead of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics. In contrast, slum tourism in Mumbai is a relatively recent phenomenon. Slum tour- ism in Mumbai only started in 2006, and at the time of the empirical research conducted in 2009, Reality Tours and Travel was the only provider running pro- fessional and regular tours. The agency was founded by Chris Way (UK) and Krishna Poojary (India), and brought about 7,000 tourists to the well-known inner- city slum of Dharavi in 2010 (Meschkank 2012: 145).

Describing this tourism phenomenon has to date been undertaken using very disparate terms. In recent academic publications, the phrases ‘slum tourism’ or ‘slumming’ have frequently been used (see articles in Frenzel et al. 2012). Some authors and tour opera- tors use terms such as ‘social tours’ or ‘reality tours’, partly because they consider that the tours contain strong interactive features, but also – seemingly – be- cause they wish to present or advertise tours as being authentic or realistic. Other authors, placing cultural and ethnic authenticity at the centre of the discussion, argue for an emphasis on the educational aspects of the tours, and refer to them as a form of cultural or ethnic tourism (Ramchander 2004; Jaguaribe and Hetherington 2004). Some authors consider the tours

to contain morally dubious socio-voyeuristic aspects, and so employ terms like poverty tourism and poor- ism. In view of recent scientific discussions, our choice is to use the most neutral term, slum tourism.

The increasing global interest in touring poor ur- ban environments is accompanied by vivid morally charged discussions. The negative view is that sight- seeing in a city’s poorest neighbourhoods is consid- ered to be an example of voyeurism and exploitation for commercial ends. Based on an assumed markedly asymmetrical relationship between those who are thought of as the tourist attraction and those who are the tourists, critics of slum tourism often argue that the dignity of slum dwellers is violated by the tourist gaze. Such critics have equated slum tours with tours of zoos and safaris. The positive view holds that slum tourism is considered to be philanthropic and educa- tional. Proponents of slum tourism argue that seeing how people live in slums raises social awareness of poverty and is, as such, a precondition for change.

Against this background this paper aims to answer the questions:

(1) How do slums become valued as tourist destina- tions, or how are slums touristically (re-)inter- preted?

(2) To what extent is a morally charged perspective of slum tourism influenced by specific precon- ceptions of slums and poverty?

In this contribution, the terms ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’ are used with reference to Luhmann (1991, 2008). From his epistemological view, ‘morality’ “is a special form of communication which carries with it indica- tions of approval or disapproval” (Luhmann 1991: 84). According to Luhmann, “it is not a question of good or bad achievements in specific respects, e.g. as an as- tronaut, musician, researcher or football player, but of the whole person insofar as he/she is esteemed as a participant in communication” (Luhmann 1991: 84). Defining morality as “the conditions of the market of approval” (Luhmann 1991: 84), the term ‘ethics’ or ‘ethical’ can be differentiated terminologically. Luh- mann considers ‘ethics’ “to be a theoretical reflection of morality” (Luhmann 1991: 85) that emerged when morality lost its social and religious ‘anchorage’. Luh- mann says that with Kant and Bentham ethics was established as a philosophical discipline tasked with the rational grounding of moral judgements (Luhmann

163DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

1991: 85). Although praising the achievements of both philosophers, however, Luhmann points out that aca- demic ethics have failed because they have not been able to provide generally accepted ‘reasons’ for mo- rality. Based on systems theory and its constructivist epistemology, Luhmann states that “every grounding of statements on ethics and morality must take a self- referential form” (Luhmann 1991: 88), and concludes that contemporary ethics has to give up trying to provide definitive reasons for morality. Instead, if the assumption is correct that “modern society can no longer be integrated by means of morality” (Luhmann 1991: 90), then ethics should be “in the position to limit the sphere of application of morality” (Luhmann 1991: 90), and – considering the close relationship between morality, conflict and force – even to “warn against morality” (Luhmann 1991: 90).

Morality and place2 are closely linked. Ermann and Redepenning (2010: 6) argue that spatial units and spatial distances are evaluated and closely linked to moral judgements on various scales and at vari- ous levels, from climate sinners and terror states to troubled neighbourhoods. They further point out that such a localisation of moral communication “is a con- ventional tool used for bringing order into the world and to make relevant moralities and amoralities ad- dressable” (Ermann and Redepenning 2010: 6; trans- lation JB, MR). Research in the field of geography has been interested in the interface between morality and place for some time. In the English-speaking world, moral geography has even established itself as a dis- tinct strain of geographical research. Nonetheless, geographical works regarding morality and place are anything but uniform. As Ermann and Redepenning (2010) note, there are various approaches, with a range of emphases: from those aiming to distinguish ‘good’ from ‘bad’ places (Sack 1999), to those promot- ing an ethically informed geography that should help in the creation of a better world (Smith 2000), to those analysing how social groups and individuals use dis- tinctions such as good and bad, and project them onto distinct places (Lippuner and Lossau 2004).

In this article we avoid a normative perspective, and instead seek a second-order observation; in other words, to observe how other observers observe the social praxis of slum tourism. Without asking if slum tourism is good or bad, we consider morality as a set of distinctions and seek to observe how these distinc- tions are drawn. We propose to find out under what conditions the social praxis of slum tourism is consid-

ered as good or bad and thereby processing esteem or disesteem among tourists and tour providers. Special attention is therefore given to any relation between morality and place. This shall be clarified by means of references to two empirical case stud- ies: (1) Cape Town, carried out in 2007 and 2008, and (2) Mumbai, carried out in 2009. The empirical research undertaken in both case studies engaged a qualitative and multi-perspective design to address the perspectives of tour-participating tourists as well as those of the relevant tour operators.

In Cape Town, the survey of township tourism comprised a combination of qualitative and quan- titative methods. 20 different township tours, of- fered by 12 different companies, were analysed in respect to their routes, destinations and choice of different stops. Qualitative interviews were under- taken with nine tour operators. We conducted ex- pert interviews with the representatives of small, middle-sized and large companies (a classification based on the number of employees, the approxi- mate tour capacity and the number of buses). This means that there was a range: from rather informal one-person companies to highly professionalised tourism enterprises. Furthermore, 179 randomly selected tourists were interviewed through the use of a standardised questionnaire just before they en- tered the township (80 % of the respondents were Europeans, 17 % from the U.S.A.), and 100 of them were also asked to fill out a standardised question- naire after the tour (see Rolfes et al. 2009).

In Mumbai, the empirical research focused on Reality Tours and Travel and their Dharavi Slum Tours. There- fore we participated in a Dharavi tour several times. The choice of tour stops and the stories relating to these locations, as well as the interaction between slum dwellers and tourists, were protocolled. Addi- tionally, qualitative interviews with 19, also random- ly selected, tour participants of all ages, mainly from Europe but also from the United States and Australia, were conducted before and after the tours. Questions raised before the tours focused on particular subjects, such as sources of information, motivation for taking part in the tour and pre-tour expectations and im- ages. After the tours, questions were posed relating to the participants’ overriding impressions, surprises and disappointments, and more generally about their views regarding the positive and negative aspects of slum life. Furthermore, interviews with the tour com- pany’s owners, Chris Way and Krishna Poojary, and

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

164 DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

one tour guide were conducted. In both case studies, the interviews were transcribed. Using the meth- ods of qualitative content analysis, we constructed systematising codes and categories by reducing and abstracting from the original interview texts. The full extent of the outcomes of these case studies is not presented here in detail (Meschkank 2011, 2013; Rolfes 2010). The results included here are only those which pertain to illustrating that slum tourism is a highly moralised form of social acting. Some signifi- cant and meaningful passages are quoted to under- line our arguments and conclusions.

The focused results of our empirical research in Mum- bai and Cape Town are presented in Sections 2 and 3. Section 2 presents the motivations of both tour pro- viders and tourists and argues that the main interest for both groups is not the presentation and consump- tion of squalor and misery, but rather the provision of a greater understanding of urban poverty. Sec- tion 3 focuses on descriptions of the main perceptual schemes present before, during and after the tours, during which slums in Mumbai and townships in Cape Town are observed. Section 4 contains an analysis of how the phenomenon of touring poorer city quarters is itself observed. Special attention is given to any re- lation between morality and place. Finally, the conclu- sion (Section 5) addresses the questions raised above, and (1) clarifies how slums are touristically (re­)inter- preted and (2) identifies the relationship between the moral charging of slum tourism and specific precon- ceived notions of slums and poverty.

2. Slum tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai: Motivations of tour providers and tourists

In light of the belief that slum tours contain morally dubious socio-voyeuristic aspects, an analysis of tour providers’ and participating tourists’ statements re- garding their motivations for presenting or consum- ing slums, respectively, as a touristic commodity is the logical first step. Understanding tourism as a con- text of communication, where supply and demand are related to each other, we argue that providers of slum tours respond to a specific demand and, at the same time, define, stabilise and stimulate this demand (Pott 2007: 75). For this reason, the views of tourists and tour providers show certain parallels. Indeed, the em- pirical results from both case studies indicate that tour providers as well as tourists conceive the slum tour as a reality tour. Providers of slum and township

tours market them as reality tours, inviting tourists to see the ‘real India’, the ‘real Africa’, or slum life ‘as it really is’. Not surprisingly, analyses of the interviews with tourists made it clear that among this group the central motivation for visiting a slum or a township was the quest for real and authentic experiences. The results of both case studies further indicate that dif- ferent meanings are attributed to the notion of reality. In the context of slum tourism, reality tourism means (1) to show and see the real slum, and (2) to show and see the real side of the visited city or country.

2.1 Seeing and experiencing ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ slum life

All interviewed providers of slum and township tours – regardless of the size and professionalism of the compa- nies – advertise their tours with promises that insights will be gained into ‘real’ slum life. Recent and previous empirical studies3 have revealed how tour companies seek to show the ‘real’ slum by transforming the nega- tive semantic field that surrounds touristic notions of slums and poverty, which tour companies believe is caused by national and international media. Krishna Poojary, for example, argues that people normally have the image that slums are dangerous, and that people are sitting around and doing nothing. Defining this nega- tive image as unreal, Poojary and his company want to show ‘a different side, a real side of the slum’. As such, they market their Dharavi tour by describing the slum to be visited as ‘a place of poverty and hardship but also a place of enterprise, humour and non-stop activity’. South African tour providers, when justifying their se- lection of sights to be shown to tourists, argue similarly, as illustrated by this quote: “They [the tourists] are not interested in negative things like poverty, politics. But they just want to see how [South Africa] has changed, projected. (…) Positive life, positive story, to tell when they go back home” (tour provider, Cape Town). Slum and township tours do not generally seek to emphasise depictions of pain, suffering and hardship, but rather they seek to present slums positively, by focusing on as- pects such as the spirit and culture of the local commu- nity, the changing and upgrading of living conditions, the multifarious and often informal economic activities of residents, the commercial and technical infrastruc- ture of the slums and townships, the development initi- atives, and the social and charitable projects that occur within the visited environments.

When tourists were asked about their motivations for taking a tour, nearly all replied that they had an in-

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

165DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

terest in the daily life of, and living conditions experi- enced by, slum residents. Nearly half of the respond- ents also expressed a wish to experience personally the globally circulated and mediated images of slums and townships. “Yes, that you have other impressions than on the TV. That you are close to the source of action and that you can run around among all these people having a look at the right and at the left and let all this affect your senses” (tourist, Mumbai). Or: “After the visit we can decide, what’s told to us by the media about the townships whether it’s true or not” (tourist, Cape Town). From the interviews, it became clear that behind this interest in personal experience lay a critical attitude towards the images produced by the mass media, especially those regarding nega- tive portrayals of poverty. In relation to this, tourists identified the educational benefits of a slum tour, and they assumed that the insights they gained into this other way of life would “broaden their horizon”. The quest for unmediated, real experiences is described elsewhere as the quest for experiential knowledge (Matthews 2008: 106) and hands-on-experiences (Freire-Medeiros 2007: 62). Following Baumann’s (2000) observation that societies are becoming in- creasingly fragmented, disembedded and globalised, and that identity and other social factors are becom- ing more and more contingent or ambivalent, Wang (2000) argues that experiential knowledge provid- ed by travel becomes an even more important and sought-after commodity (Matthews 2008: 106).

2.2 Experiencing the ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ Mumbai and Cape Town

Another strategy that a vast majority of the tour pro- viders use in their advertising is to praise slum tours by describing them as journeys to the other, ‘real’ side of the city or country being visited: “Many tour- ists come to Mumbai, the commercial capital of India, roam sitting in the back of the limousine, avail the luxuries of five star hotels, make big business deals and leave the city with a smile on their face appreci- ating the luxuries and comforts they have been pro- vided with in India. But do they really see the Real India? Do they really appreciate the Real India? To find an answer to these questions, dear friends, you need to get down from your luxury cars at a place where Real India exists. On our slum tour in Mumbai, we take you to the Dharavi Slum which shows the other side of the glamorous city of Mumbai” (Tour Provider Go Heritage India Journeys).

An integral part of the marketing strategies of slum tour providers, as illustrated by this quote, is the di- vision of the city into modern business districts and poorer urban quarters, which respectively represent both the city’s unreal and real sides. As a result of our interviews with tour operators in Cape Town in 2007- 08 and our studies of the operators’ advertising bro- chures and homepages, it became obvious that, as in Mumbai, the tour operators assume that most town- ship tourists want to see ‘the far side’ of Cape Town and search for a ‘complete’ or ‘real’ picture of the city – or of South Africa in general (Rolfes et al. 2009: 29). Similarly, one third of the tourists interviewed in Mumbai justified their decision to participate in a tour by identifying their wish to experience the real life of the cities they visit: “It is the wish to see reality. I want to see how real people live in a city. The knowl- edge that there is a lot of poverty in India and the feel- ing that you have to see this poverty, that I always feel stupid not to see it, to see only the palaces and the mu- seums” (tourist, Mumbai). The 179 township tourists interviewed in Cape Town answered similarly: 65 to 80 % of them wanted to see the living conditions in the townships and ‘real Africa’ (Rolfes et al. 2009: 38).

The question arises: Why do the poorest districts re- present ‘real’ and authentic African and Indian life? MacCannell (1976: 93) argues that the tourist’s quest for authenticity comes as a result of society’s differen- tiation between front and back regions and, as mod- ern life lacks real and true experiences, tourists are led to seek for them in pre-modern societies. Given this context, one can argue that tourists attribute authenticity to pre-modern societies, traces of which cannot be found in modern, metropolitan, globalised city centres, but rather in settlements conceived of as pre-modern, such as slums4. Indeed, the distinction between modern guest society and pre-modern host society could be found in some of the tourists’ state- ments, and often came with an idealisation and ro- manticising of the latter. To illustrate, one interview- ee judged an impending redevelopment project in Dharavi as follows: “Because going back to this thing about rehousing people in high-rise blocks, which is the easy way out, I don’t think it is the answer. They lose their communities, they lose their trades, and they lose their history. You know, in Western Europe we have done it and it has been a disaster” (tourist, Mumbai). The poverty and pre-modernity of South African townships are seen to have a close relation with ethnic categories. As a result of the ethnically segregated development of South Africa’s cities under

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

166 DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

Apartheid, townships especially are seen to represent ‘real’ Black Africa. As such, the trademarks of town- ship tours are the historical development of the town- ships and the political struggle against Apartheid, as well as Black African culture in general.

These selected findings and reflections show that tour providers and tourists both seek to present or consume real and authentic experiences. All providers claim to show, and tourists report, seeing slum life ‘how it re- ally is’. Simultaneously, these places are thought to re- present the city’s or country’s real and authentic side. The following section addresses the question how real or true slum and township life, and real or true Indian and African life, are presented by slum tour companies and perceived by visiting tourists.

3. Transforming notions of slums and townships: Making slum tours morally acceptable

Findings from our empirical studies show that – in addition to their commercial and economic motives – all slum tour companies aim to correct the tourist public’s perceptions of slums and townships by or- ganising tours that run through them. Indeed, one of the tour companies stated that its central objective was to achieve a transformation and improvement of the negative reputation of the visited settlements. This position was also presented personally by tour company owners, tour company employees and tour guides during discussions undertaken for the pur- poses of our research: “We show you the poor, but the positives of the poor and the developments ... that’s our business strategy” (tour provider, Cape Town). “The tourists want to have a brainstorm” (tour guide, Cape Town). Thus, it can be concluded that the opera- tors are working on changing the slum or township images held by tourists, and that the tours contribute to improving the image of slums and townships.

In Mumbai as well as in Cape Town, tour providers at- tempt to achieve their aim of transforming the tour- ists’ negative imagery by designing tours that will be considered as authentic and as realistic as possible. The authenticity is to be obtained by using locals as tour guides, by providing opportunities for conver- sational contact with the slum and township inhab- itants, and by offering insights into private and eco- nomic everyday situations. The tours usually take place within the scope of a walking tour in small and inconspicuous groups. Tourists in these groups are

advised to practice appropriate restraint (e.g. not to take photographs). In order to achieve an image trans- formation, however, it is also important that tours are conceived in a way that responds to the common no- tions and expectations that tourists have of slums and townships. The arbitrariness of how to interpret and represent a destination is limited, because the mean- ings ascribed to a destination by tourists are usually relatively resistant to change (Pott 2007: 188). Due to this, if they are to change a destination’s image, providers of slum or township tours must first make reference to the imagery predominant in the minds of tourists, and then consciously distance themselves from it by establishing alternative programmes of imagery. Therefore, this section addresses the fol- lowing questions: What assumptions do tour organis- ers make regarding the associations tourists have in relation to slums? Furthermore, how do they use the prevailing imagery held by tourists to form points of reference? Which sights and scenes do they exploit in order to structure tourists’ perceptions differently? And in view of this, how do tourists perceive a slum/ township after taking a tour?

3.1 How is the image of a slum or a township changed?

The interviews with tour company owners and guides showed that slum-tour organisers assumed that tour- ists primarily perceived these settlements as places of poverty. Furthermore, tour company owners stated that they believed tourists had a mental picture of pov- erty, connected with various negative attributes. These negative attributes can be generalised and placed under three main categories: exclusion, insecurity and stag- nation. In connection with these negative attributes, for nearly all tourists slums and townships emotionally symbolise squalor, hardship and despair. In Mumbai, for example, Krishna Poojary, owner of Reality Tours and Travel, assumes that tourists believe Dharavi’s residents to be lazy, inert people incapable of changing their situation. “Basically, what happens when you say the word ‘slum’? That name gives all the negative im- ages: that people are just poor or doing nothing; that they are sitting around; that there is a high crime rate that children don’t go to school, and this kind of stuff”. Our interviews in Cape Town showed similar results: A significant number of the interviewees assumed that tourists are curious about poverty and developmental processes. Slum and township tours are therefore or- ganised in relation to the beliefs that the target group are assumed to have. All tour companies aim to correct

167DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

these (assumed) negative associations by presenting particular sights and scenes capable of responding to the preconceived expectations, but simultaneously contrasting them and changing them.

Most of the locations visited by tours are chosen be- cause they counteract notions of exclusion, insecurity and stagnation by symbolising and embodying oppo- sitional stances such as creativity, culture, community and development. In order to remove or confront the idea that slum residents are economically excluded – ‘sitting around doing nothing’ – tours focus on show- ing the economic creativity and activity of slum dwell- ers. For example, Reality Tours and Travel presents Dharavi as a place of high economic productivity, containing more than 10,000 small-scale industries and generating an annual turnover of US$ 665 million. Visits to these small-scale industries, where produc- tion processes can be seen in action, form the heart of the slum tour. Tourists report experiencing Dharavi’s residents as honest, hardworking people with jobs, hoping to cover their living costs despite poor working and living conditions. The overriding impression given to tourists is that slum people have found incredibly creative and innovative ways for coping with life.

In Cape Town, on most township tours the culture of slum dwellers and their role in the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa are foregrounded and praised. From surveys of tour advertising (e.g. home- pages and brochures) with respect to the sights pre- sented during tours, and concerning the motives of the tour operators, it became obvious that nearly all tours are focused on the culture of the townships and on Black South African history. One reads and hears about a proud people who succeeded in its struggles against Apartheid; a people who kept its traditions, who danc- es and lives its life to the rhythm of music (Rolfes et al. 2009: 29). Addressing these cultural, ethnic and his- torical features, the tours make it manifest that the township residents are not excluded; rather, they are the heart of (the new) South African society.

Another image, which approximately two thirds of the tours refer to, is that of slums as places of insecu- rity, in particular in reference to crime. Some South African travel guides even contain explicit warnings about criminality in townships (Steinbrink and Frehe 2008: 38). Tour guides refer to criminal incidents only occasionally; a higher priority of the tours is the con- veying of the sense of community as it exists among the slum or township residents. Tour guides in Dhar-

avi, for example, mention that the slum was once con- trolled by the mafia, and experienced violent rioting as Hindus fought Muslims, but they emphasise that to- day, government involvement has been strengthened and mafia influence reduced, and that members of the different religious groups live together harmoniously. Almost all tour providers and guides interviewed in Cape Town ascertained that presenting social cohe- sion was a crucial part of their tours and a strategy for ensuring that crime and insecurity should cease to be considered an issue. “Yeah, it’s [my township tour]… very, very safe. Because I think most of the people know me. They know my house, they know where I am working because like each and everyone comes here and even in that area I used to be one of the com- munity members” (tour provider, Cape Town). In both case studies, slum tours stress the sense of commu- nity that exists among the poor. In contrast to the idea of poor people being aggressive, violent or even crimi- nal, they show people who are peaceful, friendly and helpful, even though, or even because, they are poor.

Stressing the creativity, activity and community of slum residents contradicts the notions that slums are places of stagnation and despair. Generally speaking, the tours leave tourists with an impression of devel- opment and hope. This is reinforced by visiting pre- schools and schools. Tour guides in Dharavi, for exam- ple, never seem to tire of stressing the fact that 85 % of Dharavi’s children go to school, and of this number 15 % go on to gain higher qualifications and employ- ment as skilled workers for banks or large multina- tional companies. In addition, tourists have their at- tention directed towards government and private redevelopment efforts, particularly those involved in the provision of basic structures for bringing running water and electricity into the slum. A vast majority of slum and township tours also focusus on the hetero- geneity of the settlements, showing various residen- tial areas which contain different types of housing – from provisionally built huts to more or less recently built single family homes and apartment buildings. In Cape Town, tour guides often state (and show through selected sights) that the townships are precisely the nucleus of the development of a new South Africa.

3.2 How do tourists perceive these image transformations?

An examination of tourists’ perceptions of slums and townships after participating in tours determines whether their preconceived images of the slums/town-

168 DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

ships have been broadened, modified or confirmed by the tours. For this reason, tourists in Mumbai (via in- terviews) and those in Cape Town (via questionnaires) were asked what observations they had throughout the course of the tour, and what impressed or sur- prised them most. The analysis of any unexpected re- sults of the surveys also aimed to find out what mental pictures and ideas of the slums and townships tourists had had before they embarked on a tour.

Although one fifth of the tourists noted with surprise the comparatively high standard of public and commer- cial infrastructure, the majority remained dismayed at the poor living and working conditions they observed during the tours. In particular, they were disturbed by the high population density, the poor housing situ- ation, the dangerously poor sanitation and the general lack of hygiene. For many tourists, these were sufficient reasons for continuing to consider the visited slum or township as a place of poverty. However, the analysis of the interviews and questionnaires revealed that the perceptions and evaluations of poverty had changed.

All interviewees in Mumbai were impressed by what they saw as an entrepreneurial spirit among slum res- idents. “What surprised me is the bustle of the slum. The bustle in terms of that there is trade, that there are markets and that there is a proper life. It is not like as it is often imagined that people are lying around in the dirt, vegetating and go begging. It is an area, slum – I don’t want to use that word. It is a less developed area, in which just the same intelligent, talented and highly creative people live” (tourist after a Dharavi tour). This tourist became conscious of the expectations he im- plicitly carried regarding slums and poverty – passiv- ity, unemployment and begging – after observing that residents were hardworking and highly productive.

Tourists in Cape Town were also asked what observa- tions they had made during the tours, and what had impressed them most. Two fifths of the visitors were especially impressed by the friendliness of the resi- dents; one fifth mentioned that the comparatively high standard of public and commercial infrastructure was a surprising slum characteristic for them. That many tourists mentioned these points obviously reflected the fact that their expectations were overturned. Be- fore the beginning of the tour, two thirds of visitors had associated the township with ‘poverty’. Given the asso- ciations with such an expectation, it is no surprise that most tourists found the prevalence of happy people and a relatively developed infrastructure to be particularly

surprising. The semantic profile (Fig. 1) filled out be- fore and after the township tour indicates that people who took part in a tour were much more likely to as- sociate townships with happy and friendly inhabitants. The prevailing tendency switched from sad to happy. The same holds true for the notions ‘hopeful’ and ‘peaceful’. Here, the expectations of a high number of respondents were more negative before the tour. In ad- dition to this, the percentage of tourists who classified the townships as rather dangerous was significantly lower after the tour. In the case of this word pair, the evaluation inclined more towards ‘safe’. Similarly, after taking a Dharavi tour, about two thirds of the tourists expressed surprise at the harmonious community- style living they had seen. Seeing the slum residents giving one another mutual support and assistance con- founded their expectations that there would be a vis- ibly high incidence of anti-social behaviour and crime. Two thirds of all the interviewed tourists in Dharavi perceived the visited slum more in terms of develop- ment than stagnation after taking a tour. One Dharavi tourist stated after the tour: “I expected people to be more desperate, actually. And I expected more stagna- tion, so that people would be rather like: Ok, we are in a bad situation and unless the government is going to help us, it is not going to change. But it was complete- ly different. It was a really great community spirit in there. Everybody tried to improve and be as productive as possible”. This statement, besides being an observa- tion of entrepreneurial behaviour and peaceful com-

Fig. 1 Evaluation of specific aspects of a township before and after the tour. In order to test the significance of the differ- ences, the U test was applied (* = 5 % level, ** = 1 % level**)5.

169DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

munal co-habitation, may also be attributable to the tourist’s observation of educational institutions in the slum. One third of the Dharavi tourists referred specifi- cally to these and noted their observations of the slum residents’ desire for improvement and hope for a better future. However, one third of the interviewed Dharavi tourists could not see any development perspectives for the slum dwellers. The low quality of education and the feared relocating of the slum dwellers and their indus- tries as a result of the forthcoming redevelopment pro- ject were cited as the main reasons.

From the analysis it becomes apparent that the visits to slums and townships bring about significant chang- es in the perceptions held by the tourists. The choices made by tour operators and agents within visited set- tlements regarding what sights and scenes are pre- sented do apparently not miss the intended goal, which is to improve the slum/township’s image. An image of slums and townships predominantly characterised by dreariness and greyness becomes more variegated, and at times even veered towards bright and rosy, as exist- ing notions of exclusion, insecurity and stagnation are contrasted with experiences and images of creativity, culture, community and development. In the majority of cases, the tourists’ perceptions of slums and townships change, from seeing them as places of despair to places of hope: “I think the term slum has changed. (…) I have seen happy faces, friendly faces and satisfied faces and hope. What makes me happy. And not hate, crime, mis- ery and pain, what one can really feel”. A French tourist spoke about her experience in the Soweto Township: “I didn’t want to go there first because I don’t want to see them like I mean a safari, like a zoo (…) but after that I realised that they are proud of their history, proud of their township and they are very friendly”.

Some tourists experienced irritation from having their expectations contradicted by the tours and had somehow to come to grips with this irritation. Half of those interviewed in Mumbai resolved this by contest- ing Dharavi’s slum status, and by choosing to relocate ‘true’ poverty elsewhere. Poverty in the sense of exclu- sion, insecurity and stagnation was relocated to Africa, South America or India’s countryside. Only three of the 19 tourists interviewed in Dharavi criticised the pre- dominantly positive portrayal of a slum dweller’s life, and therefore contested the authenticity of the tour.

However, as we have seen, all the tour operators aim to transform a slum or a township’s image, as well as the image of the tours themselves. Therefore,

the expectations of tourists are addressed by tour companies by focusing tours on poverty and slum settlements. However, slum and township tours re- interpret and transform the features that they ad- dress. Instead of insecurity, exclusion and stagna- tion, notions of creativity, culture and development are established as central characteristic elements of slums. Our findings also show that reinterpretation and transformation of slums and townships are ac- cepted by the vast majority of the tourists. The tours are mostly perceived as authentic, as an opportunity for tourists to gain insights into the ‘true life’ of slum dwellers and residents of a visited country. Moral concerns in the minds of tourists evidently seem to be settled, and are not found to persist.

Due to the small number of cases drawn from tourists and tour operators it was not possible – and not even necessary – to create types or to strive for typifica- tion: Based on our research experiences, there were no reasons to think that the observed changes in at- titude or perception differed according to sex, age or origin of the tourists, or their duration of stay. Inde- pendent of the socio-economic or demographic status of the tourist groups we achieved very similar results.

4. The relation between slum tourism, morality and place

Moral communication regarding the touring of poorer urban quarters in the Global South is ambivalent. The social praxis of slum tourism is considered wrong and right, bad and good, forbidden and requested. The cen- tral issue, therefore, is what the conditions are for the processing of esteem or disesteem among slum tour providers and participating tourists. The following brief analysis of several newspaper and magazine arti- cles undertaken for the purposes of this article and an analysis of the tourists’ moral statements will clarify the relation between moral judgements on slum tours and their involved social agents, and particular no- tions held regarding slums or townships in general. Our findings show that arguments against this form of tourism are closely linked to specific negative no- tions of slums. Namely, slums are usually linked with misery, dirt, crime, violence, prostitution, desolation and desperation (Wertz 2009). Consequently, visiting tourists are described as “cheerful visitors in bright holiday T-shirts” (Gentleman 2006) who are “weary of civilisation” (Wertz 2009). Such tourists are con- trasted with the “emaciated slum residents facing a

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

170 DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

ruthlessly dark life” (Wertz 2009). From this perspec- tive, slum tours do indeed appear to be voyeuristic and exploitative, as argued by their opponents. Critics also consider slum tours to be an intrusion of the slum resi- dents’ privacy and dignity and, in effect, treat slum res- idents like animals in a zoo (Odede 2010). In contrast, arguments for slum tourism are seen to be linked with more positive notions of slums, such as creativity, in- novation, productivity, culture and hope (Weiner 2008; Rice 2009; Hansen 2009). Consequently, slum tourists, who are described as respectful and genuinely in- terested visitors (Richardson 2009), are warmly wel- comed by friendly and gracious slum residents (Weiner 2008). Advocates of slum tours consider them to be instances of philanthropic and responsible travel, not only promoting social awareness of poverty but also – via financial donations – having a real impact.

Similarly, perhaps, to the line of argument common- ly found in newspaper and magazine articles, half of the tourists interviewed before a Dharavi tour also expressed moral doubts and a sense of guilt, as they anticipated seeing poverty in the sense of misery: “On the same hand it is stupid, that I am much more in- terested in poverty than I am in richness. And I think Mumbai is a city which combines both. And still I am, and that’s the disaster tourism part of it, that I am more intrigued by the poverty” (slum tourist, Dhara- vi). Here, it is evident that a specific notion of poverty as a ‘disaster’ is what makes this tourist feel guilty. Similarly, in Cape Town a township tourist stated that “I actually didn’t want to make the Township Tour be- cause I thought it is a bit voyeuristic. And I can’t go there and take pictures of poor people and [I] might stare at them”. Our results indicate that the described semantic change of notions surrounding slums or townships, as described in Section 2.2, largely re- solves concerns tourists have about the morality of these tours; the criteria that are used to assign the values good/bad seem to change. The above-quoted Dharavi tourist stated after the tour: “I don’t think this is disaster tourism. I think disaster tourism is when one person has a major problem and people are watching it and it gives a positive feeling to the people, who are watching it. But when I was walking there, I didn’t really have the feeling that people were having a problem. I mean, according to my Western view, it is quite poor there, and I see that it is quite dirty and es- pecially it is quite unhealthy to be there in the smoke, to work in the plastic industries. But I have the feeling that the people who are living there are quite hopeful and are quite happy with their life”.

Three of the tourists interviewed after a Dharavi tour even considered it the duty of any serious traveller to look at the whole of a destination’s reality, even though this might involve looking at pain: “A lot of people that like to come to India like to buy their sou- venirs, like to go to Goa lying on the beach and they like to have food served to them in the restaurants. (…) But at the same time maybe most of the people don’t want to see, because it is quite upsetting to see, but it is there and it is also reality and maybe it is good to see that that’s how some people live. It is education to go and to see that, and also from a moral point of view I think you should go and see it, if you have an opportunity to do so safely”. Here, the conditions of distributing esteem or disesteem are reversed; the vice becomes a virtue. Slum tours are considered as right and requested, whereas the usual holiday on a beach is criticised. Slum tourism is constructed as a more desirable alternative to the usual programmes of mass tourism catering to so called “sun-sea-and- sex backpackers” (Elsrud 2001: 608). The emotion- ally challenging aspects of slum and township tours are used to draw an image of slum tourists as “serious and respectful observers, and even discoverers of the real world” (Urbain 1993, quoted in Farías 2008: 19). Thus, slum tourists are attributed having more moral integrity than their critics, and more than those who participate in touristic escapism.

The controversy surrounding slum tourism is just one example of the debate about the increasing moralisa- tion of tourism, as identified by Butcher (2003). He highlights that all alternative forms of tourism, such as ecotourism, community tourism or volunteer tourism, tend to have one thing in common: They understand themselves as the moral alternative to conventional mass tourism (Butcher 2003: 1). These New Moral Tourists form their identity by dissociating themselves from what they consider to be the unpleasantness of mass tourism. For the New Moral Tourist, mass tour- ism is characterised by sameness, crudeness, destruc- tion and modernity. In contrast to this, New Moral Tourists associate themselves with difference, cultural sophistication, construction and a critical attitude towards ‘modern progress’ (Butcher 2003: 22). Hav- ing acquired these esteemed qualities, these tourists consider their consumption as no longer part of what destroys a visited country’s natural and cultural diver- sity; rather, their consumption contributes to solutions that guarantee cultural and natural diversity protec- tion and preservation. Butcher also points out that New Moral Tourism can be described as a form of ‘ethical

171DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

consumption’ (Butcher 2003: 103)6. The concept of eth- ical consumption is based on the traditional concept of ethics, where ethics is tasked with the rational ground- ing of moral judgements, and so understands itself as a moral undertaking and considers itself to be morally good without question (Luhmann 1991: 85).

New Moral Tourists seek meaningful experiences and the acquisition of a personal understanding of global problems. Responding to (and at the same time stimulating) the rising demand for ethical consump- tion are not only small-scale tour companies and NGO aid projects, but also luxury travel companies such as ‘Abercrombie & Kent’ which organise trips to projects supported by the travel company and NGOs all over the world. These organised tours, often labelled as social, community or volunteer tourism, provide conscien- tious travellers with non-intrusive and sustainable ways to experience a country. It is not surprising, giv- en such a background, that large as well as small tour companies are setting up businesses in slums.

Our research shows that providers of slum tours ex- plicitly or implicitly promote their tours as forms of ethical consumption. They do this in several ways: (1) by advertising their tours as meaningful experi- ences that will raise social awareness and develop a firm understanding of poverty; (2) by consciously dis- tinguishing their products from tourist programmes that focus only on glamour and luxury, which they label as common and superficial; (3) by highlighting instances of their co-operation with slum communi- ties; and (4) by declaring that benevolent objectives motivate their undertakings. For example, tours of- ten aim to show that part of the income they generate is diverted into the slum community; during tours, guides often encourage tour participants to play an active role in helping slum residents. In Cape Town, during township tours participants are given numer- ous possibilities for buying souvenirs or (locally pro- duced) arts and crafts. Additionally, during visits to social institutions tourists are offered opportunities for making financial donations. In Mumbai, Reality Tours and Travel donates 80 % of its profits to its sis- ter company, Reality Gives and markets itself explic- itly as an ethical tour company. Of the respondents in Mumbai, nearly all expressed a desire to understand how people in the Global South live, but only a few expressed the desire to have an impact on the issues faced by these people: “But I think that the reality is that the vast majority of people who live in the cities live in that sort of condition, and if you don’t want

to learn about it or be exposed to it, then you have no wish to make an impact or to make it better”. By referring to slum tourism as a form of ethical con- sumption, tourists as well as slum tour providers successfully distinguish themselves from conven- tional tourists and conventional tourist programme providers; they also contradict the central argument proposed by critics of slum tourism.

5. Conclusion

The presented results highlight that tourist destinations such as slums or townships are frequently the subject of moral communication. Furthermore, it becomes evident that there is a link between the semantic field surround- ing the places slum or township and the moral judge- ment of visiting such places in the context of tourism. Notions which surround slums and townships, such as exclusion, insecurity and stagnation, as well as their pos- itive counterparts, creativity, culture, community and development, are all morally charged concepts, implying moral judgements of good and bad. Consequently, poor urban quarters can be considered as bad places and as good places, depending on whether they are linked with negative or positive connotations.

The notions surrounding these poor urban quarters constitute the conditions which determine whether esteem or disesteem is accorded to the social agents involved in the praxis of slum and township tourism. If slums and townships are considered to be places of hardship and despair, where people live in dirt, vegetate in poverty and starve to death, and if tour- ists are brought into these places, then naturally the impression develops that exploitation occurs; spe- cifically that the privacy and dignity of slum dwellers is violated. This notion is exemplified by situations where slum tours are described using the metaphors of a zoo or a safari tour, in which slum dwellers are equated with zoo or safari animals. Such perspectives characterise slum residents as powerless, lethargic and wretched, and imply that they do not want con- tact with Westerners or tourists. In contrast, if slums and townships are considered to be places of culture, development and hope and where people are extreme- ly active and creative finding and applying ways for coping with their lives, then a different light is shed on slum tourism. From such a perspective, slum and township tours provide opportunities for gaining a different understanding of poverty and provide sup- port for slum residents and the efforts they make

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

172 DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

towards improving their living conditions. In such a context, slum tourism can be considered a form of responsible tourism, and tourists who participate in slum tours no longer appear as civilisation-weary voyeurs; rather, they appear as a kind of aid work- ers with moral integrity whose presence in a slum or township is morally integrated.

The social praxis of slum tourism is laced with moral communication; the binary code good/bad is used, but is at the same time pointless. Slum tourism can be observed as philanthropic and helpful, or voyeur- istic and exploitative. As the programmes outlining the rules for evaluating specific behaviours as good or bad are no longer prescribed by religion, and be- cause – so far – no substitute can be found, there is a lack of consensus about the criteria assigning the val- ues good and bad. Moral communication is still claim- ing to speak for society, but in a poly-contextual world this cannot happen unanimously. As our empirical re- search on slum tourism, morality and place illustrates, modern society is characterised by an individualisa- tion of moral perspectives (Luhmann 1998: 248).

Notes

1 To summarise the countries where slum tourism takes place, the term ‘Global South’ is used in this article for at least two reasons: First, the notion “developing coun- tries” should be avoided, because it has the negative connotation of “underdevelopment”. Moreover, the term ‘Global South’ better takes account of the multiple glob- al linkages and socio-economic fragmentations in the (mega)cities in the so-called ‘developing countries’ (cf. Doevenspeck and Laske 2013: 261).

2 In this article the term ‘place’ is used with reference to the German term Raum. But there is also a conceptual proxim- ity to the term as it is used in the Geographical Concepts: „A place is a specific part of the Earth’s surface that has been named and given meaning by people, although these mean- ings may differ” (Lambert 2013: 176).

3 Freire-Medeiros (2007); Rolfes et al. (2009); Rolfes (2010); Meschkank (2011)

4 Different from MacCannell (1976) and in accordance with more recent research (Cohen 1988; Bruner 1994; Wang 1999) we do not understand these alleged authentic or true places as essentialist entities, but rather as social construc- tions. Authenticity is not a given characteristic of any object

or place, but rather a characteristic ascribed by a specific observer for a specific purpose.

5 “Here is a list of pairs of contradicting words. Tick spon- taneously which of the following words do better describe the township”.

6 In our analysis we took account of positive articles (Kubisch 2008; Collins 2009; Damon 2009; Hansen 2009; Frank 2010; Robertson 2012) and also of more critical views (Gentleman 2006; Wertz 2009; Odede 2010). Many of the articles investi- gated show an ambiguous attitude, presenting arguments both for and against this form of tourism (Lancaster 2007; Weiner 2008; Rice 2009; Richardson 2009; Swanson 2011; Basu 2012).

References

AP 2007: Township tourism booming as visitors want to see ‘real’ South Africa. – International Herald Tribune, Africa & Middle East, 3 January 2007. – Online available at: http:// www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2007-01-04-south- africa-township-tourism_x.htm, 15/05/2012

Basu, M. 2012: Poverty tours: A learning experience or simply gawking? – CNN, 22/05/2011. – Online available at: http:// edition.cnn.com/2012/05/22/travel/india-poverty-tour- ism/index.html, 15/05/2012

Baumann, Z. 2000: Liquid modernity. – Cambridge Bruner, E.-M. 1994: Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduc-

tion: A critique of postmodernism. – American Anthropol- ogist 96 (2): 397-415.

Butcher, J. 2003: The moralisation of tourism. Sun, sand and saving the world. – London et al.

Cohen, E. 1988: Authenticity and commodization in tour- ism. – Annals of Tourism Research 15 (3): 371-386

Collins, V. 2009: Slum tours: Traveling off the beaten path. Slum tours offer travelers an authentic, offbeat look at foreign cul- tures – and locals a new way to make a living. – Odewire, 01/04/2009. – Online available at: http://odewire.com/60395/ slum-tours-traveling-off-the- beaten-path.html, 15/05/2012

Damon, A. 2009: Slum tourism: Visitors see the ‘real’ Jakar- ta. – CNN Asia, 30/07/2009. – Online available at: http:// edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/29/indonesia. slum.tourism/, 15/05/2012

Doevenspeck, M. und J. Laske 2013: Entwicklung, Entwick- lungsforschung und Geographie. – In: Rolfes, M. und A. Uhlenwinkel (Hrsg.): Metzler Handbuch 2.0 Geographie- unterricht. Ein Leitfaden für Praxis und Ausbildung. – Braunschweig: 255-266

Dürr, E. and R. Jaffe 2012: Theorizing slum tourism in Latin America and the Caribbean: Performing, negotiating and transforming inequality. – Revista Europea de Estu-

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

173DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

dios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe / European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 93: 113-123

Dürr, E. 2012: Urban poverty, spatial representation and mo- bility. Touring a slum in Mexico. – International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36 (4): 706-724

Elsrud, T. 2001: Risk creation in travelling: Backpacker adven- ture narration. – Annals of Tourism Research 28 (3): 597-617

Ermann, U. und M. Redepenning 2010: Gute Räume – schlechte Räume? Zum Verhältnis von Moral und Raum in der Geo- graphie. – Geographische Revue 12 (1): 5-20

Farías, I. 2008: Touring Berlin: Virtual destination, tourist communication and the multiple city. – Berlin

Frank, R. 2010: Slum tours for the wealthy come under scruti- ny. – The Wall Street Journal, 01/02/2010. – Online available at: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/02/01/slum-tours-for- the-wealthy-come-under-scrutiny/, 15/05/2012

Freire-Medeiros, B. 2007: A favela que se vê e que se vende. Reflexões e polêmicas em torno de um destino turístico. – Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 22 (65): 62-72

Freire-Medeiros, B. 2009: The favela and its touristic transits. – Geoforum 40 (4): 580-588

Frenzel, F., K. Koens and M. Steinbrink (eds.) 2012: Slum tourism. Poverty, power and ethics. – New York et al.

Gentleman, A. 2006: Slum tours: A day trip too far? – The Observer, 07/05/2006. – Online available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ travel/2006/may/07/delhi.india.ethicalliving, 15/05/2012

Hansen, S. 2009: Bei den ‚Slumdogs‘. Ein engagiertes Reise- büro führt Touristen durch das indische Armutsviertel Dharavi. – Taz, 03/06/2009. – Online available at: http:// www.taz.de/4/reise/asien/indien/artikelseite/1/bei- den-slumdogs/, 15/05/2012

Jaguaribe, B. and K. Hetherington 2004: Favela tours: Indis- tinct and mapless representations of the real in Rio de Ja- neiro. – In: Sheller, M. and J. Urry (eds.): Tourism mobilities. Places to play, places in play. – London: 155-166

Kubisch, B. 2008: Slum-Tourismus in Namibia: Auf ein Bier zu Saddam. – Spiegel Online, 11/09 2008. – On- line available at: http://www.spiegel.de/reise/fern- weh/0,1518,573848,00.html, 15/05/2012

Lambert, D. 2013: Geographical Concepts. – In: Rolfes, M. and A. Uhlenwinkel (eds.): Metzler Handbuch 2.0 Geogra- phieunterricht. Ein Leitfaden für Praxis und Ausbildung, Braunschweig: 174-181

Lancaster, J. 2007: Next stop, squalor. Is poverty tourism “poorism”, they call it exploration or exploitation? – Smith- sonian, 03/2007. – Online available at: http://www.smith- sonianmag.com/people-places/squalor.html, 15/05/2012

Lippuner, R. und J. Lossau 2004: Geographie und spatial turn. – Erdkunde 58 (3): 201-211

Luhmann, N. 1991: Paradigm lost. On the ethical reflection of morality. Speech on the occasion of the award of the Hegel Prize 1988. – Thesis Eleven 29: 82-94

Luhmann, N. 1998: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. – Frankfurt a.M.

Luhmann, N. 2008: Die Moral der Gesellschaft. – Frankfurt a. M. MacCannell, D. 1976: The tourist: A new theory of the leisure

class. – London Matthews, A. 2008: Negotiated selves: Exploring the impact

of local-global interactions on young volunteer travel- lers. – In: Lyons, K.D. and S. Wearing (eds.): Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International case study perspectives. – Oxfordshire: 101-117

Meschkank, J. 2011: Investigations into slum tourism in Mumbai. – GeoJournal 76 (1): 47-62

Meschkank, J. 2012: Negotiating poverty. The interplay between Dharavi’s production and consumption as a tourist destination. – In: Frenzel, F., K. Koens and M. Stein- brink (eds.): Slum tourism. Poverty, power and ethics. – New York et al.: 144-158

Meschkank, J. 2013: Dhavari – ein Ort der Armut? Untersu- chungen zum Slumtourismus in Mumbai. – Potsdamer Geographische Praxis 4

Odede, K. 2010: Slumdog tourism. – The New York Times, 09/08/2012. – Online available at: http://www.nytimes. com/2010/08/10/opinion/10odede.html, 15/05/2012

Pott, A. 2007: Orte des Tourismus: Eine raum- und gesell- schaftstheoretische Untersuchung. – Bielefeld

Ramchander, P. 2007: Township tourism: Blessing or blight? The case of Soweto in South Africa. – In: Richards, G. (ed.): Cultural tourism: Global and local perspectives. – New York: 39-67

Rice, X. 2009: Kenya’s slums attract poverty tourism. Tour- ists snapping up £20 guided walks around Nairobi’s open- sewer streets. – The Guardian, 25/09/2009. – Online available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ sep/25/slum-tourism-kenya-kibera-poverty, 15/05/2012

Richardson, N. 2009: Slumdog millionaire: On the trail of Mumbai’s slumdogs. – The Telegraph, 22/01/2009. – On- line available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ destinations/asia/india/4306996/Slumdog-Millionaire- on-the-trail-of-Mumbais-slumdogs.html, 15/05/2012

Robertson, L. 2012: Do “slum tours” profit of the poor? – BBC Travel, Ethical Traveller column 2012. – Online available at: http://www.bbc.com/travel/blog/20120307-ethical- traveller­do­slum­tours­profit­off­the­poor, 15/05/2012

Rolfes, M. 2010: Poverty tourism: Theoretical reflections and empirical findings regarding an extraordinary form of tourism. – GeoJournal 75 (5): 421-442

Rolfes, M., M. Steinbrink and C. Uhl 2009: Townships as at- traction. An empirical study of township tourism in Cape Town. – Praxis Kultur- und Sozialgeographie 46. – Potsdam

Sack, R.D. 1999: A sketch of a geographic theory of moral- ity. – Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89 (1): 26-44

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

174 DIE ERDE · Vol. 144 · 2/2013

Smith, D.M. 2000: Moral geographies: Ethics in a world of difference. – Edinburgh

Steinbrink, M. and K. Frehe 2008: Township-Tourismus in Kapstadt. To go or no go? – Praxis Geographie 12: 38-43

Steinbrink, M. und A. Pott 2010: Global Slumming. Zur Genese und Globalisierung des Armutstourismus. – In: Wöhler, K., A. Pott und V. Denzer (Hrsg.)s.): Tourismus- räume. Zur soziokulturellen Konstruktion eines globalen Phänomens. – Bielefeld: 247-270

Swanson, J. 2011: The pros and cons of slum tourism. All in favor of the real-life set of “Slumdog Millionaire” becom- ing a tourist attraction. – CNN GO, 16/05/2011. – Online available at: http://www.cnngo.com/mumbai/play/pros- and-cons-slum-tourism-723332, 15/05/2012

United Nations Human Settlements Programme 2006/2007: The state of the world’s cities 2006/2007. The millennium

development goals and urban sustainabilities. 30 years of shaping the Habitat Agenda. – London

Urbain, J.-D. 1993: El idiota que viaja (relatos de turistas). – Madrid

Wang, N. 1999: Rethinking authenticity in tourism experi- ence. – Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2): 349-370

Wang, N. 2000: Tourism and modernity: a sociological ana- lysis. – New York

Weiner, E. 2008: Slum visits: Tourism or voyeurism? – New York Times, 09/03/2008. – Online available at: http:// t ravel .ny t imes.com/2008/03/09/t ravel/09heads. html?ref=ericweiner, 15/05/2012

Wertz, A. 2009: Safari ins Elend? – Der Freitag, 05/04/2009. – Online available at: http://www.freitag. de/politik/0914-slum-tourismus-reiseunternehmer- rio, 15/05/2012

Of voyeuristic safari tours and responsible tourism with educational value: Observing moral communication in slum and township tourism in Cape Town and Mumbai

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 2092–2113, 2012 0160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.07.006 www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

RESPONSIBLE SLUM TOURISM: EGYPTIAN EXPERIENCE

Moustafa A. Mekawy Menoufiya University, Egypt

Abstract: This paper aims to evaluate stakeholders’ views on the potential role that slum tourism and its associated products can play in enhancing living conditions in slums in Egypt. Empirical results were obtained using two quantitative surveys: one to investigate dwellers’ perceptions and a second to select appropriate pro-poor products based on stakeholders’ preferences. Findings show that inhabitants have positive attitudes toward the possibility of benefiting from slum tourism, but they differed in their ranking of the appropriateness of related pro-poor products. Based on findings, authorities should develop appropriate slum tourism products and typologies, as a planning threshold, to enhance living conditions of dwellers. A useful planning way of drawing ties between slum types and typologies is presented. Keywords: slum tourism, Ashwa’iyyat, responsible, planning, Greater Cairo. � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Slum tourism has been defined as tourism that involves visiting impoverished areas. It is sometimes called poverty tourism or slumming or seeing how the other half lives (Cejas, 2006; Diekmann & Hannam, 2012; Manyara, Jones, & Botterill, 2006; Williams, 2008). Slum tourism is getting plenty of attention today as a practice that should be subject to responsible reflection (Goodwin, 2011b). The primary question that will be explored is whether or not responsible tourism is beneficial to the alleviation of poverty in Egyptian slums. Notably, using tourism as a vehicle for sustainable development is now becoming an important item on the agendas of public policy planners. However, how to use tourism as a potential tool in fighting poverty is still being explored by international and national organizations as well as by local govern- ments and authorities (Clancy, 1999; Jiang, DeLacy, Mkiramweni, & Harrison, 2011; Neves, 2006; Spenceley & Meyer, 2012).

Moustafa A. Mekawy is a Senior Lecturer of Tourism Management, at the University of Menoufiya (Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels Management, El Sadat City, Postal Code: 32897, Egypt. Email <[email protected]>). His principal research interests include poverty reduction, models and typologies, managing needs; expectations; and satisfactions, investment and strategic planning in the tourism sector. He has undertaken researches and consultancies in Egypt, KSA and the UK.

2092

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2093

Concepts relating to responsible tourism and its associated products have also received the attention of tourism researchers, planners and professionals as the industry has rapidly developed (Blake, Arbache, Sinclair, & Teles, 2008; Cattarinich, 2001; Harrison, 2008). However, unlike at the international level, research into suitable pro-poor tour- ism products and into developing planning approaches with the inten- tion of improving slum inhabitants’ living conditions has not been a particular focus of Egyptian researchers and planners. Hence, the broad purpose of this study is twofold: to enhance the understanding of responsible tourism activities and pro-poor tourism products that have a positive effect on living conditions in the different types of Greater Cairo’s (GC) Ashwa’iyyat (Arabic for slums), and to explore how poverty reduction practices can be applied in a responsible man- ner to these informal settlements in Egypt in order to meet the aspira- tions of their inhabitants, thereby converting these settlements into destination slums.

SLUM TOURISM AND RESPONSIBILITY ISSUES

This section seeks to examine the extent to which recent literature on slum tourism can help recognize some of GC’s slums’ characteristic paradoxes and to verify the possible role of poor areas in supporting slum tourism experiences (Manyara et al., 2006). It is argued that while these paradoxes exist, the way that they are understood and addressed on a national level and from a theoretical level has been constrained by the lack of engagement of Egyptian tourism planners and researchers with wider debates, in the majority of the ongoing projects that intend to improve GC’s slum conditions. Existing national notions do not ex- plain the growing international trend of slum-based tourism. Rather, several recent authors have clearly indicated that most of today’s slums are destinations and focal points for many authentic reality tourist itin- eraries (Cejas, 2006).

In an attempt to verify the role of slums’ forms and features in pro- moting the slum tourism experience, the contradictory debates over some key characteristics relating to the importance of GC’s slums for tourism are demonstrated below. For example, when looking at GC’s Ashwa’iyyat as ‘‘high-density slums,’’ it is paradoxical to view this char- acteristic as helpful, because it addresses a key issue underlying a wider debate by recognizing the slums as sources of human capital for tour- ism rather than as impoverished areas to live in (Cejas, 2006). This study also addresses the potential that GC’s slums have of being a ‘‘tourism economic power,’’ which may lead to the dwellers’ emancipa- tion if they are used as a main source of tourism products based on the slums’ resources (Cheong & Miller, 2000).

For instance, labor-intensive products such as handicrafts for tourists were traditionally located in the old quarter of al-Gamaliya near Khan al-Khalili, the largest tourist bazaar in Egypt. However, it seems that when demand for these goods increased due to a massive rise in the number of tourists, wage laborers left the old workshops in central

2094 M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113

Cairo and established their own small-scale manufacturing enterprises in the mega slum of Manshiet Nasser, one of GC’s Ashwa’iyyat (Séjourné, 2009). This is illustrative of how convenient, responsible tourism prod- ucts from GC’s Ashwa’iyyat systems of production can generate greater economic benefits for inhabitants and can improve working conditions and access to industry (Ashley & Roe, 2002; Hall, 2007; Salençon, 2004; Séjourné, 2009). This article argues that while increased national inter- est has been given to understanding GC’s slum types, there have also been many missed opportunities in terms of their possible tourism pro- duction resources (Khalifa, 2011; Sabry, 2009; Séjourné, 2009). The next section reviews a wider planning perspective to explore the Ash- wa’iyyat’s types and their proposed tourism products.

GC’s Ashwa’iyyat Resources and Types: A Useful Planning Threshold

Many researchers think that research that sought to document re- sources and types of slums in tourism literature during the early to mid-2000s produced essential baseline data (Goodwin, 2011b; Mitchell & Ashley, 2010). As a result of their efforts, most scholars accept that although some slum resources tend to be useful for producing pro-poor products, most do not (Manyara et al., 2006). This ‘‘baseline’’ effort also reveals the limitations of using the ‘‘slum production resources’’ term in tourism to categorize all products of a certain slum type (Ashley & Goodwin, 2007). The heterogeneity of this constituency leads this study to propose a useful planning way of drawing ties be- tween slum resources and slum type characteristics in tourism during the following discussion. Initially, economists identified three re- sources of production: labor, land and capital. More recently, three types of capital have been recognized: physical, human and natural (Tassone & Van der Duim, 2010).

For planning and poverty, many academics note that any pro-poor product should aim to expand benefits to the poor and to present practical steps to authorities that can transform strategies into concrete actions for the improved living conditions of dwellers (Croes & Vane- gas, 2008; Goodwin, 2011b). Arguably, that production of pro-poor products should be based on innovative investment in unique charac- teristics of each slum type, and these products’ development requires adopting a collaborative and responsible planning approach. This endeavors to reduce negative impacts and costs of production while recognizing and minimizing negative impacts on the host community and maintaining positive impacts on slum living conditions (Haywood, 1988; Hutnyk, 1996; McGehee, 2012; Mitchell & Ashley, 2010). The current study proposes that GC’s slum resources can support sustain- able development of ‘‘responsible’’ slum tourism in a reliable planning manner that can help create improved places for dwellers to live and for tourists to visit (Butler, 1999).

Research on Egyptian slums suggests that GC’s Ashwa’iyyat come in many types (Sabry, 2009). Based on reviewed literature, Table 1 sum- marizes possible different types, listing key descriptions, resources

Table 1. GC’s Ashwa’iyyat Types Descriptions, Resources and Products

Ashwa’iyyat types Description What do characteristics of slum types tell us?

Possible tourism production resources

Possible slum tourism products/typologies examples

Type one Slums on subdivided former agricultural land, where the builder has purchased land informally from other owners.

Human capital: –Tourism

craftsmen. Physical capital:

–Prior irrigation patterns. Natural capital:

–Agriculture fields.

Traditional rural food & drink celebrations.

Type two Informal settlements on state-owned (desert) land, where the dweller has only a ‘hand claim’ (Wadaa’ yed in Arabic) or a leasehold.

Human capital: –NGOs/

community associations’ activities. Physical capital:

–Private residential buildings. Natural capital:

–Desert lands & flora.

Urban family visits.

Type three In the historic city of Cairo before the expansions beginning after 1860, there are neighborhoods with a high percentage of old, crowded, and deteriorating structures within a medieval, urban setting.

Human capital: –Sacrificing families

that educate children. Physical capital:

–Historic cities/ villages. Natural capital:

–Natural wetlands.

Traditional market visits.

Type four This type exists in the ancient Islamic cemeteries in Cairo and is not common in other urban centers, where many poor Egyptians have made these cemeteries’ rooms their permanent homes.

Human capital: –Very poor people.

Physical capital: –Monumental

cemeteries. Natural capital:

–Highly calcareous loams.

Volunteer tours.

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2095

2096 M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113

and products in each category. The current review accentuates the planning way presented in Table 1, which tends to reflect much of the analysis contained in this article. In so doing, following the ap- proach used by the Informal Settlement Development Facility (ISDF, 2009), it distinguishes between four types of GC’s Ashwa’iyyat. The four-part typology was developed as an attempt to solve the problem- atic urban planning issue of what counts as a slum in Egypt (ISDF, 2009). This division was made by replacing the term ‘‘Ashwa’iyyat’’ with two distinctive terms, ‘‘unplanned areas’’ and ‘‘unsafe areas.’’ This ap- proach is considered to underpin the identification of priorities for intervention and the drawing up of strategies for improving slums’ con- ditions and the lives of their inhabitants (Khalifa, 2011).

According to ISDF (2009), an unsafe area is characterized by life threatening conditions or inappropriate housing; these areas are out of this study’s scope. Unplanned areas are spaces that were developed in violation of planning and building laws and regulations (Khalifa, 2011). Recognizing the importance of the approach adopted by ISDF (2009), this paper highlights some conceptual planning guidelines that have brought the four-type classification to the kind of division suggested in Table 1. As will be noticed, the description of the four types emphasizes settlements, which infringe the Egyptian planning law, i.e., are informal settlements rather than slums, in the sense of hav- ing unsafe and unhealthy conditions (Sabry, 2009). For that reason, the current review probably highlights a novel area of research for planning that could be used to connect possible slum resources and types in tourism, and ultimately, this may help in shaping pro-poor products.

Tourism and Ashwa’iyyat: Debatable Issues

Many of the potential avenues of slum tourism research remain open to critical enquiry. Little is understood, for example, about why some researchers tend to confirm a positive relationship between slum tour- ism growth and possible stress on existing infrastructure, while others do not (Meschkank, 2011; Rolfes, 2010). Apparently, there are partial insights from studies that have been undertaken in improving infra- structure research, and much remains to be done. As a result, it is claimed here that researching slums’ upgrading strategies, governmen- tal planning approaches and the effective involvement of inhabitants, for instance, will enable a clearer understanding of how slums’ infra- structure might be sustained by the main stakeholders (Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990). Increasing the numbers of tourists visiting GC’s Ash- wa’iyyat could lead to burdening the existing infrastructure. However, the ever-increasing number of dwellers exerts tremendous pressure on basic urban services as well as on infrastructure (Séjourné, 2009).

Within the context of proposed collaborative and responsible planning approaches, this review disagrees with the claim that slums’ infrastructure is overused by tourists. On the contrary, it argues that it is the absence of planning thresholds that causes this. Additionally,

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2097

it appears that the problem is both a lack of responsible support on the part of government plans toward dwellers and a failure in honoring their rights as citizens (McGehee & Santos, 2005; Zeng & Ryan, 2012). One possible explanation of this claim is that most of the visits to slums take the form of a half-day tour, intended to show tourists how people live therein (Duarte, 2010). This means that the existing infra- structure in GC’s Ashwa’iyyat is probably not being overused in the short term. Thus, it is imperative to draw up a coherent governmental action plan for the implementation of infrastructure projects aimed at achieving sustainability (Thorne, 2011).

Further, it is argued that one of the research challenges is to rethink tourists’ motivations currently in fashion within the wider domain of volunteer tourism research (Brown, 2005; Uriely, Reichel, & Ron, 2003). To enrich discussion in this area, this paper argues that ques- tions such as ‘‘Why do tourists tend to visit GC’s slums?’’ and ‘‘Who are the slum tourists?’’ are closely related. Answers to the first may pro- duce the slum tourists’ motivational framework, and that may help in answering the second question. Accordingly, it is useful to build upon Lo and Lee’s (2011) study of volunteer tourism and motivations for tra- vel. Three of their five motivating factors were, in fact, related to the incentives framework that may be adopted to encourage volunteer tourists to visit slum areas, even though tourists realize that these slums are impoverished and lacking in utilities (Gray & Campbell, 2007; Zah- ra & McIntosh, 2007).

Lo and Lee’s (2011) incentives approach attempts to address three fundamental issues. First, Lo and Lee state that volunteer tourism in slum destinations provides a unique experience for cultural immersion and social interaction with local people (Binns & Nel, 2002; Brown, 2005; Caton & Santos, 2009). Secondly, they argue that today’s volun- teer traveler seeks meaning in his/her vacations and is moving away from the trend of having vacations just for pleasure, instead attempting to benefit from these trips as educational opportunities. Thirdly, Lo and Lee dispute that volunteer tours in poor areas allow tourists to es- cape from everyday life and involve themselves in a ‘‘more primitive society, in which the tourist can reflect on his/her identity in modern society in comparison to the other.’’ Moreover, Lo and Lee point out that those tourists are motivated by a desire to give back and to show love and concern to the poor (Tosun, 2006; Urry, 1990).

One final issue to be addressed is the negative economic impact that these tours may have on GC’s Ashwa’iyyat. The threat of economic leak- age occurs when not all of the foreign currency earned through tour- ism remains within the host community, unless interested local authorities manage them properly (Ashley & Goodwin, 2007). Signifi- cant leakage can cause negative attitudes toward slum tourism. How- ever, leakage can be reduced by encouraging smaller scale tourism developments, which can enable inhabitants to participate (Burns, 1999; Honey, 1999; Loon & Polakow, 2001). Likewise, visitors should be aware of what portions of their tours’ profits go back into the com- munity to support responsible activities (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005). It is also important to ensure that the money claimed

2098 M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113

to be redistributed back into the slum’s community actually is redistrib- uted (Manyara & Jones, 2007). Consequently, it is suggested that the appropriate form of tourism development for slums is collaborative and responsible participation in small-scale cooperatives.

Collaborative participation means gathering small investments from many dwellers, making it possible to raise the necessary capital for small projects. As a result, tourism revenue remains in local hands and is multiplied through the economy several times (Mathieson & Wall, 1982). This allows for increased local participation as well as in- creased local satisfaction from tourism’s benefits. So the government of Egypt uses the cooperatives as vehicles for the attainment of upgrad- ing and social economic development in the poorer communities (ISDF, 2009). Typically, slum tourism cooperatives are imbued with un- ique slum flavors such as traditional building methods, foods and hab- its, which are incorporated into the project. Thus, slum norms and standards may be more prevalent in small-scale cooperatives than in large-scale developments (Lepp, 2007). Hence, it is argued that addressing these debates and reviews is important in identifying the sig- nificance and scope of slum tourism in GC’s Ashwa’iyyat.

Study Methods

The inherently measurable features of poverty tourism dimensions recognized by many researchers require a quantitative method ap- proach in order to regulate the empirical findings (Croes & Vanegas, 2008). To gain a comprehensive picture of the possible role of slum tourism activities in enhancing dwellers’ living conditions, empirical re- search was divided into two surveys. The quantitative method used for the two surveys was a questionnaire examination (Creswell, 1994). The first survey used a snowball sample of GC’s Ashwa’iyyat inhabitants to understand their attitudes toward existing slum tourism practices, using the approach methodology of Wearing and Lee (2008) and adopting Noy’s (2007) sampling process. Six hundred and thirty-one inhabitants were approached for this research. They lived in the four types of GC’s Ashwa’iyyat and were employed in related tourism profes- sions such as stone carving workshops, old craft shows, gift shops and bazaars. However, their employment location was not always one of the survey sites.

An inhabitant was considered appropriate for the sample if he/she had had experience with tourists, tourism activities and practices and if, through his/her work, he/she had acquired professional knowledge of tourism effects and how they can alleviate poverty. The survey was administrated by research representatives, who sent results to the author to be interpreted. The first step toward identifying target inhab- itants was to approach them within GC’s Ashwa’iyyat workshops and small businesses. There, the relatives and students of the researcher were introduced to individuals who acted as coordinators. These coor- dinators then identified a number of young, well-educated inhabitants

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2099

whom they considered capable of assisting in the distribution and collection of the inhabitants’ questionnaire (henceforth IQ). The assisting students in turn distributed IQs to GC’s dwellers and collected them afterward. Completed IQs were handed to coordinators, who in turn delivered them to the researcher along with their remarks.

A total of four hundred and sixty-four usable surveys were returned, giving a highly satisfactory response rate of 73%. To achieve a 95% con- fidence level with a ±5% sampling error (with the most conservative re- sponse format of p = .05 and q = .05), the required sample size is 374 (Mann, 1998). In the present study, respondents numbered 464, which corresponds to a sampling error of 4.54% instead of 5%, which is in line with previous results of Roney and Öztin (2007). Basically, this study represents an initial step in the development and validation of a multifactorial measure of slum inhabitants’ attitudes toward tourism activities, using Ogawa and Malen’s (1991) method. This measure be- gan with a systematic review of literature on responsible tourism and slums, which identified common perspectives of dwellers, to build the quantitative scale (Goodwin, 2011a). Next, potential items were se- lected from several expert sources to represent the domain of emo- tional responses.

Items were rewritten, if necessary, for clarity and applicability, and additional items were generated to apply to the Egyptian context. How- ever, only items that assess economic and social impacts were included, as these two items are relevant to the rapid improvement of current liv- ing conditions of dwellers in the short term (McGehee, 2002). Other items assessing physical, political, psychological and environmental im- pacts were excluded, as these are relevant to the long-term effects (Brohman, 1996; McGehee, 2012). The scale was then tested for con- tent validity by pilot-testing the IQ with experienced professionals and academics from fields of tourism planning, development research and sustainable tourism management (Butler, 1999). Based on the feedback, several scale items were edited or eliminated, and new ones were added. In particular, questions with a negative wording were chan- ged to have a positive wording, because respondents expected GC’s res- idents to have difficulty answering negatively phrased questions.

The final IQ comprised four sections and was tested once more with planning and development academics and experts. Only minor changes had to be made at this stage. The IQ’s first section focused on obtaining the socio-economic information of the participants; the second section explored the emotional feelings of inhabitants about the presence of tourists and tourist activities in their neighborhoods; the third allowed respondents the opportunity to reflect on the most positive and most negative aspects of tourism activities and practices; and the fourth focused on obtaining information about factors that prevent inhabitants from profiting from tourism activities. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha (a) was computed to measure the coefficients of the overall scale and its sub-scales, where all scales had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.657 or more. According to Frey and George (2010), this is an acceptable level in tourism research.

2100 M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113

The second survey aims to identify responsible activities and prod- ucts that could help enhance living conditions. To give a more rounded view of these activities’ and products’ roles, randomly selected members from a complete list of slum experts, planners and numbers of stakeholders developed by the ISDF (2009) were invited to contrib- ute their perspectives. These participants were included in the survey due to their previous and current roles in GC’s slum upgrading and development projects. They were believed to be more knowledgeable, with a basic understanding of slum tourism issues, and able to provide meaningful data. A total of 89 contributors met the appropriate criteria and were willing to participate. The sample comprised planning ex- perts (37.2%), well-educated inhabitants (bachelor’s degree holders and above) (12.6%), local authorities’ representatives (10%), represen- tatives of Nongovernmental Organizations (2%), tourism developers and businessmen (11%), academics and postgraduate researchers (19.2%) and interested slum and volunteer tourists (8%).

Furthermore, people who had been involved in a project related to upgrading slums in GC were also considered eligible to be invited to participate in the survey. In this stage, the survey involved two main steps. The first aimed to select responsible products and to rate their importance based on participants’ experiences and their professional knowledge of both pro-poor tourism typologies and the current char- acteristics of each of GC’s Ashwa’iyyat types. The rating was done on the following scale: (one) signified that the product was ‘‘the most important,’’ and (five) signified it was ‘‘the least important.’’ The sec- ond step was intended to identify the practices of slum tourism that could be developed by the authorities and implemented in GC’s slums. These two steps were used to avoid errors arising from bias. Since the used methods must have validity, multiple resources should be used to provide reasonable results (Creswell, 1994).

GC Inhabitants’ Perceptions Toward Tourism Activities

This section details findings from the inhabitants’ investigation. A to- tal of 464 respondents were interviewed, of whom 59.8% were male and 40.2% female. All respondents were aged 19 or above, and a large number of them were aged between 29 and 54 (62.9%). 1.5% of the respondents had attained secondary or above education. 37.3% of the respondents were working full-time, whereas the remaining 62.7% were without any full-time job. Some of the typical tourism occu- pations were bazaar workers (34.5%), service or sales workers (19.0%), stone-carving workers (9.0%) and craft workers (5.6%). Among those who were working full-time, 36.2% had an annual income under US$1000, 45.9% between $1000 and $1999 and 17.9% earned $2000 or above. This survey covered the entire four types of GC’s Ashwa’iyyat, including respondents living at type one (22.7%), type two (31.4%), type three (22.5%) and type four (23.4%). Of the respondents, 86.4% had been living in GC’s Ashwa’iyyat for eight years or more.

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2101

Table 2 shows the mean value of GC inhabitants’ perceptions of activities practiced around their districts. As for their responses to the variables of sub-scale one, the statistical mean ranges from 2.6695 to 4.0625. The location of this range is between ‘‘unsupportive’’ and ‘‘supportive’’ viewpoints. Moreover, the overall mean score was 3.5555 out of 5, which means that the emotional feelings/interests of dwellers toward current tourism activities, in general, were neither sup- portive nor unsupportive. These results indicate a moderate degree of involvement of GC slums’ inhabitants in relation to responsible fea- tures of tourism (Lea, 1993). Further, no significant difference was identified when the interest in involvement was compared to inhabit- ants’ gender, working status or profession categories. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that slums’ unacceptable living conditions are the primary causes preventing the inhabitants from being involved in tourism activities and practices (Butler, 1999).

Interestingly, when asked to identify current opportunities for casual laborers, 378 out of 464 respondents (81.4%) indicated that tourism job opportunities were considered a supportive tool to enhance their living conditions. In asking participants to state their emotional re- sponses to the economic benefits of tourism, a separate indicator for a more precise feature of responsible activities’ interest was obtained. Once again, a high degree of curiosity was identified (86.8%, n = 403). As for tourism involvement when providing opportunities for selling additional goods and services that people offer, no statisti- cally significant difference could be found for interest in activities’ par- ticipation when examined by gender, working status or profession categories. These results support the hypothesis that inhabitants are interested in responsible economic benefits of tourism activities. How- ever, it is argued that the results are limited, in that a measurement of those currently living in GC’s Ashwa’iyyat and working in tourism activ- ities is not established.

These findings seem to conflict with the notion that poor and ill- educated people living in slums have a high degree of anxiety due to seeking to become employed in tourism activities (Goodwin, 2011a; Wearing & Lee, 2008). In considering this, it should be kept in mind that a large portion of respondents were poor (in terms of their level of daily income) and ill-educated, and they are consequently under considerable pressure to find job opportunities. Further, it should be remembered that respondents were not asked directly about their emo- tional feelings of anxiety in regard to becoming employed. It is there- fore possible that no correlation exists between the two phenomena. Simply, respondents who indicated an interest in being involved in tourism practices and activities that take place around their quarters may also be worried about current poor social and economic factors that decrease their employment opportunities (Sin, 2009).

Remarkably, IQ results indicate the dwellers’ strong interest in posi- tive impacts of tourism activities that lead to the improvement of their poor areas’ conditions in general and of infrastructure in particular. Yet a reported shortage of tourism activities for slums’ infrastructure development still exists in literature (Zeng & Ryan, 2012). So it is rea-

Table 2. Inhabitants’ Perceptions toward Tourism Activities-Descriptive Analysis (n = 464)a

Variables/

factors

Factors interpretations/dwellers

views

5-Point Likert Scale Factor analysis testb

4+5 3 1+2

Sub-scale

two

How would you best describe your

emotional responses toward

tourism activities that are

practiced around your

neighborhood as a supportive

tool to enhance your living

conditions?

Very supportive/

supportive

Neutral Very

unsupportive/

unsupportive

SM SD % variance

explained

Loading

f % f % f %

V1 There are no benefits yielded from

tourism activities.

151 32.5 91 19.6 222 47.9 2.8772 1.29794 n/a .657

V2-F8c Current activities provide

opportunities for selling

additional goods and services.

403 86.8 44 9.5 17 3.7 4.0625 .73949 5.287 .763

V3-F5c Current activities offer labor-

intensive and small-scale

opportunities.

337 72.6 25 5.4 102 22 4.0625 1.26182 7.815 .776

V4 Current activities employ a high

proportion of female-headed

households.

111 23.8 58 12.5 295 63.7 2.6695 1.21181 n/a .721

V5 The poor may gain few direct

benefits from current activities.

339 73.1 101 21.8 24 5.1 3.9828 .86928 n/a .637

V6 Many foreigners come to the

Ashwa’iyyat wishing to

understand poverty.

345 74.3 70 15.1 49 10.6 3.6789 .82503 n/a .509

Sub-scale

three

How would you best describe the

most positive and negative

aspects of the tourism activities

that you have experienced at

your area?

The most positive Neutral The most negative SM SD % variance

explained

Loading

f % f % f %

V7-F7c Collecting funds from tourists for

local Development projects.

303 65.3 39 8.4 122 26.3 3.7500 1.37000 5.992 .765

2102 M

.A .

M ekaw

y/A n

n als

of T

ou rism

R esearch

3 9

(2 0 1 2 )

2 0 9 2 –2

1 1 3

-F 6

D o

n at

in g

p ro

fi ts

fr o

m to

u ri

sm

o p

er at

io n

s to

lo ca

l d

ev el

o p

m en

t

ch ar

it ie

s.

13 8

29 .8

9 1.

9 31

7 68

.3 2.

84 70

1. 28

80 4

6. 98

6 .7

66

E m

p lo

yi n

g p

o o

r ca

su al

la b

o re

rs .

37 8

81 .4

36 7.

8 50

10 .8

4. 31

03 1.

00 89

3 n

/ a

.7 39

0 A

ll o

w in

g p

o o

r w

o m

en a

gr ea

t

o p

p o

rt u

n it

y to

b e

in vo

lv ed

in

su ch

ac ti

vi ti

es .

83 17

.9 37

8 34

4 74

.1 2.

32 76

1. 27

12 2

n /

a .7

17

1 D

ir ec

t p

ar ti

ci p

at io

n in

in fr

as tr

u ct

u re

im p

ro ve

m en

t b

en efi

ti n

g to

u ri

st s

an d

p o

o r

re si

d en

ts .

43 3

93 .3

6 1.

3 25

5. 4

4. 75

86 .7

65 01

n /

a .6

80

2 P

o o

r ri

gh ts

(e .g

., la

n d

te n

u re

,

p re

se rv

in g

tr ad

it io

n s

et c.

) m

ay

b e

u se

d as

to u

ri sm

as se

ts .

46 9.

9 16

3. 4

40 2

86 .7

2. 28

66 .9

37 43

n /

a .6

86

3 W

o rk

in g

w it

h th

e p

o o

r h

ig h

li gh

ti n

g

vo ye

u ri

st ic

an d

ex p

lo it

at iv

e

as p

ec ts

o f

to u

ri sm

.

42 9

37 8

38 5

83 2.

22 41

.8 67

82 n

/ a

.6 56

4 V

is it

in g

le ss

d ev

el o

p ed

p la

ce s

li ke

yo u

rs al

lo w

to u

ri st

s an

d

fo re

ig n

er s

to o

b se

rv e

p eo

p le

li vi

n g

in p

o ve

rt y.

48 10

.3 10

2. 2

40 6

87 .5

2. 25

43 .8

86 66

n /

a .5

81

5- F

3 c

T o

u r

ag en

ts o

rg an

iz in

g sl

u m

to u

rs

ar e

li ke

ly to

h av

e a

d ea

l w

it h

d ru

g lo

rd s

to en

su re

th e

sa fe

ty

o f

w ea

lt h

y to

u ri

st s.

52 11

.2 49

10 .6

36 3

78 .2

2. 20

69 .9

92 56

10 .4

14 .7

90

6 M

an y

vi si

to rs

th in

k th

at m

er el

y

b ea

ri n

g w

it n

es s

to su

ch p

o ve

rt y

is en

o u

gh .

29 6.

2 76

16 .4

35 9

77 .4

2. 29

81 .7

93 46

n /

a .6

29

7- F

1 c

M an

y sl

u m

to u

rs ac

ti ve

ly en

co u

ra ge

to u

ri st

s to

h el

p o

u t

w it

h

p re

p ar

in g

fo o

d an

d w

at er

fo r

so m

e o

f th

e p

o o

re r

re si

d en

ts .

36 6

78 .9

27 5.

8 71

15 .3

4. 21

12 1.

25 67

8 11

.6 50

.8 17

8 M

an y

‘A ra

b ’

to u

ri st

s ca

m e

to sl

u m

d is

tr ic

ts te

m p

o ra

ri ly

fo r

m ar

ri ag

e- re

la te

d p

u rp

o se

s.

29 6.

2 1

.2 43

4 93

.6 2.

07 76

.6 81

77 n

/ a

.6 35

(c on

ti n

u ed

on n

ex t

pa ge

)

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2103

c

V

8

V 9

V 1

V 1

V 1

V 1

V 1

V 1

V 1

V 1

V 1

T ab

le 2

(c on

ti n

u ed

)

V ar

ia b

le s/

fa ct

o rs

F ac

to rs

in te

rp re

ta ti

o n

s/ d

w el

le rs

vi ew

s

5- P

o in

t L

ik er

t Sc

al e

F ac

to r

an al

ys is

te st

b

4+ 5

3 1+

2

Su b

-s ca

le

fo u

r

H o

w w

o u

ld yo

u b

es t

d es

cr ib

e th

e

fo ll

o w

in g

fa ct

o rs

th at

m ay

p re

ve n

t in

h ab

it an

ts fr

o m

b en

efi ti

n g

fr o

m to

u ri

sm

ac ti

vi ti

es ?

St ro

n gl

y ag

re e/

ag re

e

N eu

tr al

St ro

n gl

y d

is ag

re e/

d is

ag re

e

SM SD

% va

ri an

ce

ex p

la in

ed

L o

ad in

g

f %

f %

f %

V 19

L ar

ge sl

u m

s an

d a

h ig

h p

o p

u la

ti o

n

d en

si ty

m ay

p re

ve n

t th

e p

o o

r

fr o

m b

en efi

ti n

g fr

o m

th e

p o

si ti

ve im

p ac

t o

f to

u ri

sm

ac ti

vi ti

es .

44 0

94 .9

9 1.

9 15

3. 2

4. 79

53 .7

60 17

n /

a .5

94

V 20

-F 2

c Sl

u m

’s re

m o

te n

es s

h in

d er

s th

e

p o

o r

fr o

m ga

in in

g fr

o m

to u

ri sm

.

43 1

92 .9

2 .4

31 6.

7 4.

73 06

.8 35

66 11

.3 32

.8 07

V 21

U n

sa fe

as p

ec ts

p re

ve n

t th

e p

o o

r

fr o

m b

en efi

ti n

g fr

o m

p o

si ti

ve

im p

ac t

o f

to u

ri sm

.

28 1

60 .5

15 9

34 .3

24 5.

2 4.

06 47

1. 08

99 7

n /

a .6

44

V 22

F ee

li n

gs o

f sh

am e

ab o

u t

so ci

al

b ac

kg ro

u n

d p

re ve

n t

d w

el le

rs

fr o

m p

ar ti

ci p

at in

g in

ac ti

vi ti

es

th at

m ay

al le

vi at

e p

o ve

rt y.

43 7

94 .2

20 4.

3 7

1. 5

4. 58

19 .6

78 09

n /

a .7

41

2104 M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113

V23-F4c Dwellers rarely have faith in

government support of

reallocating benefits of tourism

to them directly, so they do not

participate in tourism activities.

397 85.6 14 3 53 11.4 4.4957 1.01818 10.081 .777

V24 Many tourists visit slums for the

purpose of human trafficking

(especially women and

children), therefore, the poor

tend to be afraid of

participating in tourism

activities.

403 86.9 16 3.4 45 9.7 4.2651 1.02706 n/a .611

Key: = (SM) = Statistical mean, (SD) Standard deviation, (f) = Frequency, (%) = Percentag (n/a) = Not available. a Based upon the descriptive statistics, frequencies and dispersion test, (SPSS, V.16.0); b Ex action method: Principal component analysis, Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; c F1:F8 = Factors underlying slum tourism activities a perceived by GC’s Ashwa’iyyat inhabitants.

M .A

. M

ekaw y/A

n n

als of

T ou

rism R

esearch 3 9

(2 0 1 2 )

2 0 9 2 –2

1 1 3

2105

e, tr s

2106 M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113

sonable to postulate that responsibility for tourism activities should be reflected in a constructive upgrading manner concerning the current status of slums’ infrastructure; this notion was explored throughout the study. Although two quantitative surveys were used, the aim was to provide a completeness of exploration rather than a confirmation of validity. Interestingly, GC’s inhabitants’ perceptions indicated sev- eral factors as obstacles to benefiting from tourism activities in terms of infrastructure development. This suggests a high degree of validity in regard to these concurrent themes, for example, factors related to unsafe aspects and a lack of faith in government support (Thorne, 2011).

Regarding positive aspects of tourism, the majority of respondents (93.3%) said that activities that help with direct participation in the improvement of infrastructure would benefit both tourists and poor residents (mean = 4.7586; SD = 0.76501), (see Table 2). This result confirms previous efforts of Cattarinich (2001) and Manyara et al. (2006), who discuss how responsible activities are characterized by the indirect enhancement of services, which empower the poor to help alleviate poverty features. Especially important in this respect are inclu- sive actions that lead to poor areas’ improvements (e.g., in infrastruc- ture, agriculture, etc.), which benefits the poor without targeting them directly (Duarte, 2010; Manyara & Jones, 2007; Scheyvens, 2007). This can be argued as an example of what this study calls a ‘‘responsible tourism reward,’’ and it adds a further dimension to the discussion of inhabitants’ involvement versus responsible activities, particularly if viewed as target for potential interventions aimed at encouraging these responsible activities.

Turning to the factors that may bar inhabitants from profiting from activities that possibly will enhance their living conditions, the statisti- cal mean of inhabitants’ perceptions ranged from mean = 4.0647; SD = 1.08997 to mean = 4.7953; SD = 0.76017, which signifies that dwellers strongly agree that all surveyed factors may prevent them from earning from current tourism activities that are practiced around them. More importantly, the majority of them (94.9%) found that the large size of the slum population is the main factor contributing to this. Remarkably, the strongest theme running through the reviewed data sources is the influence that existing slums’ population density has on inhabitants interested in benefiting from existing tourism activ- ities (ISDF, 2009; Manyara & Jones, 2007). It can possibly be claimed that variation in motivation between and within slum inhabitants should be considered when attempting to identify priorities in select- ing slum inhabitants for tourism job opportunities.

Factors Underlying Slum Tourism Activities as Perceived by GC’s Ashwa’iyyat Inhabitants

This research attempts to determine possible emotional perceptions of local community dwellers from different GC Ashwa’iyyat types toward various tourism activities and practices by utilizing reviewed related

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2107

data on slums and tourism to generate factors that could hinder slum tourism activities from becoming more responsible (Tosun, 2006). To investigate inhabitants’ perceptions of the variables related to tourism activities, participants were asked to rate their degree of agreement/ disagreement on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ (one) to ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (five) for all 24 items. A factor analysis test, as shown in Table 2, reduced the 24 variables to eight fac- tors with eigenvalues greater than one for each. This means that these eight components have to remain in the analysis; to satisfy Kaiser’s cri- terion, factors with an eigenvalue of less than one (currently repre- sented by variables 9–24), are excluded (Kinnear & Gray, 2004).

Additionally, a factor analysis test shows that the extracted eight vari- ables accounted for 69.55% of total variance. Table 2 shows factors in the order of their importance in accounting with correlations between the overall perception of tourism activities and each factor in the anal- ysis. The most important factor, with the value of the test’s coordinate or loading (0.817), and percent variance explained (11.650), is the fol- lowing: ‘‘Many slum tours actively encourage tourists to help out with prepar- ing food and water for some of the poorer residents.’’ This result indicates that respondents have a strong degree of interest in becoming a target of ‘‘food donation tours.’’ This finding supports the hypothesis that food donation tours act as a responsible practice for slums’ inhabitants (Mitchell & Ashley, 2010). However, when compared to the degree of importance (70.8%) produced by simple frequencies, it becomes evident that obstacles to benefits from such responsible activities must exist.

Such a view is supported by Thorne (2011), who explored the rea- sons why food donation tours were associated with a responsible out- put. Although Thorne’s study results are potentially biased through inadvertent purposive sampling, Thorne’s findings are relevant. The research concluded that the common approach to helping the poor is to present inhabitants as grateful recipients of charity and to struc- ture excursions to encourage food donation tours. However, tourists should also value local peoples’ pride, dignity and ability to cope (Wearing & Lee, 2008). Despite the difficulty in generalizing this result beyond the sample population (n = 63), the current result indicates that interest in food and drink celebrations as a proposed pro-poor product is not a problem associated with inadequate involvement of GC’s slums in such activities (measured through participating in a slum tourism food celebration). Instead, a more specific problem exists relating to the voyeuristic nature of such tourism activity (Manyara & Jones, 2007; Williams, 2008).

Getting involved in such tourism activities has a negative connota- tion, from dwellers’ viewpoints, creating a likely obstacle to respon- dents’ own future participation in food celebrations. ‘‘Fear of voyeurism’’ and ‘‘something to be ashamed of’’ are ethical attitudes that were frequently cited within both surveys and in IQ data collection as obstacles to engaging in such activities and consequently benefiting from them, with regard to reducing poverty adversities of those dwell- ers. Interestingly, respondents with prior experience seemed unsure of

2108 M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113

developing effective local authorities’ actions in the near future that could prevent such obstacles. However, the inhabitants’ experience was also related to the overcoming of perceived negative aspects. In this case, the emphasis was firmly directed to the role of local authorities and stakeholders. This finding helps to illustrate how slum inhabitants’ experience can be perceived as benefiting the local people’s involve- ment (Blake et al., 2008; Jiang et al., 2011; Perdue et al., 1990; Williams, 2008).

What is the Relative Importance of Responsible Pro-Poor Products?

Speaking with slum tourism stakeholders was important, because this presented a new and different perspective on the new trend in question. The goal of the survey was to explore these stakeholders’ thoughts regarding (a) responsible products and (b) how to identify practices in slum tourism. Some key findings from the conducted descriptive statistics provide evidence that ‘‘traditional rural food & drinks celebration’’ is the most important product for slum type one, with 63 out of 89 respondents (70.8%) choosing it as such, giv- ing it the highest mean value (mean = 1.9809) and the smallest (SD = 0.4019). However, 82.0%, n = 73 indicated an interest in ‘‘ur- ban family visits’’ as the most important product for slum type two, although 92.1%, n = 82 indicated an interest in ‘‘traditional market visits’’ as the most important product for slum type three. And 91.0%, n = 81 stated ‘‘volunteer tours’’ as the most important respon- sible product for slum type four.

Remarkably, similar results were identified when respondents were asked to indicate the relative importance of proposed prod- ucts they would be willing to provide. This suggests a considerable demand for responsible products in GC’s slums from stakeholders’ perspectives. Furthermore, these results suggest a degree of rela- tionship between slum type and proposed product. This contradicts the assertion of Goodwin (2011a) that indicated that any type of tourism products and activities can potentially reduce poverty in all impoverished areas. It is possible that the distinction for a par- ticular product in a certain slum type is born from concerns of associated planning features, particularly those relating to land acquisition and building conditions (ISDF, 2009). Further, it can be speculated that stakeholders could be concerned about the way that tourism products affect poverty, in the context of its im- pacts on a daily needs basis of the slums’ inhabitants as a whole (Manyara & Jones, 2007).

When considering the postulate that inhabitants living in the first type of GC’s Ashwa’iyyat already possess the land upon which they construct their buildings (ISDF, 2009), it becomes possible to iden- tify the most obvious poverty feature, which is limited to the need for food and water on a daily basis. In considering this, it should be kept in mind that the majority of inhabitants living in this slum type are craftsmen and workers in extremely low income households

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2109

(Sabry, 2009). It is therefore possible that stakeholders have a very strong interest (mean = 1.9809, SD = 0.4019) in ‘‘food and drink cel- ebrations’’ as a pro-poor product, which can make a significant con- tribution to the food security of dwellers without creating dependency (Mitchell & Ashley, 2010). Following the same way of thinking, it can be argued that stakeholders indicate a potential link between slum type two and ‘‘urban family visits’’ as an appropriate product.

Significantly, results indicate a strong interest in ‘‘urban family visits’’ as a pro-poor product (mean = 1.8022, SD = 0.4039) from stakeholders’ perspectives. This suggests a high degree of validity in this approach, which begins by noting that poor families with long- leasehold contracts are often rich in culture and in connection to their natural environment (Séjourné, 2009). Further, it highlights that tourists wish to join such authentic family experiences, living in this slum type. Interestingly, findings also link ‘‘market visits’’ to slum type three and highlight a perceived association of the tradi- tional aspects of these markets to be visited. This is crucial, as it can be argued that when considering the claim that most inhabitants living in slum type three, particularly, where the majority of handi- craft workshops are situated, are laborers employed in these work- shops (Séjourné, 2009), it becomes clear that possible economic benefits targeted by stakeholders to support inhabitants of slum type three can be identified.

Finally, results indicate that the most important product for type four was ‘‘volunteer tours’’ (mean = 1.9899; SD = 0.2876). Once again, this result is a confirmation of the need for social support for people living in such inhuman conditions (Gray & Campbell, 2007; Jones, 2005). This is considering the fact that cemetery slums (type four) are socially apart from the rest of GC and have a poor image in Egyptian society (Khalifa, 2011). This study ar- gues that an inhabitant who has to live with this burden will prob- ably have low self-esteem and a poor self-image (Wearing, 2004). Such a view is also supported by the research of Duarte (2010) and McGehee (2012), who claimed that the encounter between dwellers and tourists is based on asymmetric interactions. Conse- quently, it is argued that if inhabitants accept tourists, it is be- cause some of them may not be aware of the humiliation that is taking place (Lea, 1993).

CONCLUSION

This study has provided an initial exploratory analysis of slum tour- ism experience and practices for improving living conditions of GC’s Ashwa’iyyat, providing further understanding of what is known from the existing literature on the paradoxical debates about some key char- acteristics relating to GC’s slums’ role in tourism. The study has pro- duced new planning insights into the significance and scope of slum tourism in GC’s Ashwa’iyyat from both inhabitants and stakeholders’

2110 M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113

perspectives and some detail on responsible activities currently used to reduce poverty features in poor areas. Based upon collected responses from two quantitative surveys, the lesson that can be learned is that the ethical debates concerning the introduction of tourism in informal set- tlements should be focused on how tourism is planned and imple- mented in slums. Arguably, it is not the presence of tourism, but rather how it is developed, that is the central issue.

Notably, it appears that it is the way that tourism is run that affects the inhabitants’ living conditions and optimizes (or not) the positive side of slum tourism practices (Lea, 1993). Following this line of thought, the remarkable idea of collaborative and responsible participation seems to be a critical element to be incorporated in debates about slum tourism planning or even in discussions concerning the positive impact of tourism in poor areas (Manyara & Jones, 2007). This paper has also investigated the emotional responses of slums’ inhabitants who were asked about the possible role of slum tourism practices in enhancing their living conditions, in terms of current tourism activities that existed around their poor areas, and whether or not responsible tourism activities are beneficial for the alleviation of poverty in Egyptian slums. Results from this investigation suggested a number of further broad implications for the management and planning of the slum tourism experience.

For instance, Egyptian authorities are invited to develop appropri- ate products for the purpose of enhancing dwellers’ living condi- tions. Nevertheless, the government should bear in mind that as the idea of Ashwa’iyyat tourism is still young, it will take some time to be able to profit from positive results of this trend. This study suggests that slum tourism challenges the Egyptian government to be involved and responsible enough to play a proactive planning role in improving GC’s poor inhabitants’ living surroundings. Nota- bly, practices such as increasing educational levels, employing crafts- men and supporting drink and food celebrations that are inclusively directed to the poor people of GC’s slums may allow effective and responsible support to their living environment. Additionally, this may be an important concern for future slum tour campaigns aim- ing to demonstrate their ethical slum tourism issues (Blake et al., 2008; Cattarinich, 2001; McGehee & Santos, 2005; Mitchell & Ashley, 2010).

This research was restricted to a limited fieldwork experience of three months in four types of GC’s slums. To explore the possibility of tourism’s being a catalyst of change and improvement in living con- ditions, the goal was to get an emotional insight into how dwellers view having tourism in their areas. Further research should include tourists’ motivations for visiting slums. It should also make comparisons of tour- ists’ thoughts before and after experiencing a slum tourism activity. It would then be possible to evaluate the change in perception after the experience, and thus to address what is it that is prompting tourism in GC’s slums. What impact does slum tourism have on tourists who opt for this kind of tour? These issues clearly provide valuable topics and

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2111

suggestions for future research on the debate about slum tourism in Egypt and the world.

Acknowledgements—The author wishes to acknowledge the research coordinators, the ISDF staff members, Eng. Amira Abou Gazia, Bristol Business School, and the communities of Greater Cairo’ slums for their help during the field work. I also thank Prof. Renata Tomljenović of the Institute for Tourism, Croatia and Dr. Mohamed Fawzy Afify of Menoufiya University for commenting on the earlier draft of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Andereck, L. K., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056–1076.

Ashley, C., & Goodwin, H. (2007). Pro poor tourism: What’s gone right and what’s gone wrong?. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Ashley, C., & Roe, D. (2002). Making tourism work for the poor: Strategies and challenges in southern Africa. Development Southern Africa, 19, 61–82.

Binns, J., & Nel, E. (2002). Tourism as a local development strategy in South Africa. Geographical Journal, 168, 235–247.

Blake, A., Arbache, J. S., Sinclair, M. T., & Teles, V. (2008). Tourism and poverty relief. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 107–126.

Brohman, J. (1996). New directions in tourism for Third World development. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 48–70.

Brown, S. (2005). Travelling with a purpose: Understanding the motives and benefits of volunteer vacationers. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(6), 479–496.

Burns, P. (1999). Paradoxes in planning: Tourism elitism or brutalism?. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 329–348.

Butler, R. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7–25.

Caton, K., & Santos, C. (2009). Images of the other: Selling study abroad in a postcolonial world. Annals of Tourism Research, 48(2), 191–204.

Cattarinich, X. (2001). Pro-Poor Tourism Initiatives in Developing Countries: Analysis of secondary case studies. Retrieved December 07, 2011, from the UK Department for International Development Web site: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/ Outputs/Mis_SPC/R7557-PPT8.pdf.

Cejas, M. (2006). Tourism in shantytowns and slums: A new contact zone in the era of globalization. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(3), 224–230.

Cheong, S., & Miller, M. (2000). Power and tourism: A Foucaldian observation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 371–390.

Clancy, M. (1999). Tourism and development: Evidence from Mexico. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(1), 1–20.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. London: SAGE Publications.

Croes, R., & Vanegas, M. (2008). Cointegration and causality between tourism and poverty reduction. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1), 94–103.

Diekmann, A., & Hannam, K. (2012). Touristic mobilities in India’s slum spaces. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1315–1336.

Duarte, R. (2010). Exploring the social impacts of favela tourism: An insight into the residents’ view. Unpublished Master thesis, Wageningen University, Department of Environmental Science, The Netherlands.

Frey, N., & George, R. (2010). Responsible tourism and the tourism industry: A demand and supply perspective. Tourism Management, 31(5), 621–628.

Goodwin, H. (2011a). Tourism and poverty reduction. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 339–340.

2112 M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113

Goodwin, H. (2011b). Tourism and responsibility: Perspectives from Latin America and the Caribbean. Tourism Management, 32(3), 701–702.

Gray, N., & Campbell, L. (2007). A decommodified experience? Exploring aesthetic, economic, and ethical values for volunteer ecotourism in Coast Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 463–482.

Hall, C. M. (2007). Pro-poor tourism; do tourism exchanges benefit primarily the countries of the South?. In C. M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor Tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction (pp. 1–8). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Harrison, D. (2008). Pro-poor tourism: A critique. Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 851–868.

Haywood, K. (1988). Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management, 9(2), 105–118.

Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise?. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Hutnyk, J. (1996). The rumour of Calcutta: Tourism, charity and the poverty of representation. London: Zed.

ISDF: Informal Settlement Development Facility. (2009). Terms of reference for data collection of slum areas (unsafe and unplanned) in the governorates of the republic. Cairo: ISDF.

Jiang, M., DeLacy, T., Mkiramweni, N. P., & Harrison, D. (2011). Some evidence for tourism alleviating poverty. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1181–1184.

Jones, S. (2005). Community-based eco-tourism: The significance of social capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 303–324.

Khalifa, M. (2011). Redefining slums in Egypt: Unplanned versus unsafe areas. Habitat International, 35(1), 40–49.

Kinnear, P., & Gray, C. (2004). SPSS 12 made simple. New York: Psychology Press. Lea, J. P. (1993). Tourism development ethics in the third world. Annals of Tourism

Research, 20(4), 701–715. Lepp, A. (2007). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda.

Tourism Management, 28, 876–885. Lo, A. S., & Lee, C. Y. S. (2011). Motivations and perceived value of volunteer

tourists from Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 32(2), 326–334. Loon, R., & Polakow, D. (2001). Ecotourism in South Africa, rags or riches?. Annals

of Tourism Research, 28(4), 892–907. Mann, P. (1998). Introductory Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises develop-

ment in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 628–644.

Manyara, G., Jones, E., & Botterill, D. (2006). Tourism and poverty alleviation: The case for indigenous enterprise development in Kenya. Tourism Culture & Communication, 7(1), 19–37.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts. New York: Longman House.

McGehee, N. (2002). Alternative tourism and social movements. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 124–143.

McGehee, N. (2012). Oppression, emancipation, and volunteer tourism: Research propositions. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 84–107.

McGehee, N., & Santos, C. (2005). Social change, discourse, and volunteer tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 760–779.

Meschkank, J. (2011). Investigations into slum tourism in Mumbai: Poverty tourism and the tensions between different constructions of reality. GeoJournal, 76(1), 47–62.

Mitchell, J., & Ashley, C. (2010). Tourism and poverty reduction: Pathways to prosperity. London: Earthscan.

Neves, P. (2006). Tourism: Towards sustainable regional development. Unpublished Master thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Planning and Environment, Sweden.

Noy, C. (2007). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1–18.

M.A. Mekawy/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 2092–2113 2113

Ogawa, R. T., & Malen, B. (1991). Towards rigor in reviews of multivocal literature: Applying the exploratory case method. Review of Educational Research, 61, 265–286.

Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586–599.

Rolfes, M. (2010). Poverty tourism: Theoretical reflections and empirical findings on an extraordinary form of tourism. GeoJournal, 75(5), 421–442.

Roney, S., & Öztin, P. (2007). Career perceptions of undergraduate tourism students: A case study in Turkey. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 6(1), 4–17.

Sabry, S. (2009). Poverty Lines in Greater Cairo: Underestimating and misrepresenting poverty. Retrieved October 24, 2010, from the International Institute for Environment Development Web site: http://www.iied.org/pubs/ display.php?o=10572IIED.

Salençon, S. (2004). Tourism: A tool for poverty alleviation. Unpublished Master thesis, Bournemouth University, United Kingdom.

Scheyvens, R. (2007). Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. In C. M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction (pp. 121–144). Clevedon, England: Channel View.

Séjourné, M. (2009). The history of informal settlements. In R. Kipper & M. Fischer (Eds.), Cairo’s informal areas between urban challenges and hidden potentials: Facts, voices, and visions (pp. 17–19). Cairo: GTZ Egypt.

Sin, H. (2009). Volunteer tourism: Involve me and I will learn?. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 480–501.

Spenceley, A., & Meyer, D. (2012). Tourism and poverty reduction: Theory and practice in less economically developed countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 297–317.

Tassone, V., & van der Duim, R. (2010). Tourism, poverty alleviation and nature conservation: The state of contemporary research. Finnish Journal of Tourism Research, 6(1–2), 7–29.

Thorne, J. (2011). Selling culture to package tourists: An exploration of demand for intangible cultural heritage excursions in the Gambia. Unpublished Master thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University, United Kingdome.

Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management, 27(3), 493–504.

Uriely, N., Reichel, A., & Ron, A. (2003). Volunteering in tourism: Additional thinking. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 57–62.

Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary society. London: Sage.

Wearing, S. (2004). Examining best practice in volunteer tourism. In R. Stebbins & R. Graham (Eds.), Volunteering as leisure/leisure as volunteering. Oxford, UK: CAB International.

Wearing, S., & Lee, D. (2008). Pro-poor tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 616–618.

Williams, C. (2008). Ghettotourism and voyeurism, or challenging stereotypes and raising consciousness? Literary and non-literary forays into the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 27(4), 483–500.

Zahra, A., & McIntosh, A. J. (2007). Volunteer tourism: Evidence of cathartic tourist experiences. Tourism Recreation Research, 32(1), 115–119.

Zeng, B., & Ryan, C. (2012). Assisting the poor in China through tourism development: A review of research. Tourism Management, 33(2), 239–248.

Submitted 20 September 2011. Resubmitted 15 November 2011. Final version 7 July 2012. 17 July 2012. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Chaim Noy, Ph.D.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Strathclyde] On: 28 August 2014, At: 03:15 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20

‘We did the Slum!’ – Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective Malte Steinbrink a a Institute for Geography & Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) , University of Osnabrück , Osnabrück , Germany Published online: 20 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Malte Steinbrink (2012) ‘We did the Slum!’ – Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective, Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 14:2, 213-234, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2012.633216

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2012.633216

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Tourism Geographies Vol. 14, No. 2, 213–234, May 2012

‘We did the Slum!’ – Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective

MALTE STEINBRINK Institute for Geography & Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS), University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

Abstract Slum tourism in the Global South is a relatively new phenomenon. The tourist gaze at the poverty of the Others is long established, though. This paper is concerned with the genesis of urban poverty tourism. By placing the phenomenon of slumming in the wider realm of the social upheavals in Victorian London and early twentieth century USA, the historical review first explains its dependency on the social context determining its emergence and evolution. Secondly, slum tourism is shown to be adequately understood only if seen as part of modern city tourism. Thirdly, it is demonstrate that the culturalization of poverty attains special significance in slum tourism. Fourthly, the history of slum tourism is shown to have implications for understanding present-day slum tourism in the Global South, using South Africa as an example. The article is designed to be a first step towards understanding the conditions, forms and consequences of globalization of slum tourism and the process of constructing the global slum as a universal type of tourist destination.

Key Words: South Africa, England, USA, slum tourism, poverty tourism, urban tourism, ethnic slumming, moral slumming, global slumming, history

Introduction

Tourism lives on what is different. Its economic implications alone urge it to constantly create new products and open up new segments on the market. Tourism always looks for new places, inventing sights and sites which are then marked and marketed as tourist attractions. The fact that tourism needs innovations for purposes of self- preservation is by no means new. What is interesting, however, is to take a look beyond this pure logic of market mechanisms in order to find out how, why and with what implications places of tourism are socially constructed.

The emergence of a new trend in tourism, too, always gives rise to reflection on why it emerges precisely at a particular point in time and in a particular social context. Since the 1990s, one such new trend has been observable in long-distance international tourism, a development which has been spreading rapidly on a global

Correspondence Address: Malte Steinbrink, Institute for Geography & Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies, University of Osnabrück, Seminarstr. 19 a/b, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany. Fax: 0049-541-969-4333; Tel.: 0049-541-9694556; Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1461-6688 Print/1470-1340 Online /12/02/00213–22 C© 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2012.633216

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

214 M. Steinbrink

basis and which, at first sight, might look surprising; and that is ‘slum tourism’ in the Global South. In spite of strong criticism coming from the international media, visits to poor urban areas in big cities in the South are unmistakably gaining in importance both in terms of tourism and in economic terms. How can this development be explained? How and with what consequences are slums constructed as destinations worth touring during a holiday?

In an increasing number of big cities in the Global South, poor urban settlements are marketed for tourism. This slum tourism takes place primarily in the form of guided tours – be they bus, jeep or walking tours. The slum tours already constitute an important item in the range of offers made by the urban tourism industry. For example, a slum tour has now become part of the standard programme of a visit to Cape Town or Johannesburg; and a tour of Rocinha, Rio de Janeiro’s largest favela, is, today, one of the tourist’s must dos, just as strolling at the beach of Ipanema and climbing the Sugar Loaf. Estimates suggest an annual 300,000 or so tourists embarking on slum tours in Cape Town (AP 2007) and approximately 40,000 in Rio (Freire-Medeiros 2009). These figures indicate that slum tourism is already a highly professionalized business in South Africa and Brazil. But slum tours have also been meeting with increasing interest in other countries of the Global South, both among tourists and providers, who see a huge growth potential in this branch of tourism. For example, organized slum tours are executed, inter alia, in the poor areas of Manila (Philippines), Jakarta (Indonesia), Cairo (Egypt), Buenos Aires (Argentina), Nairobi (Kenya), Mazatlán (Mexico), Bangkok (Thailand) and Windhoek (Namibia).

A current example is India, where slum tourism is noticeably expanding at present. A driving force for this development has been the huge media attention in the wake of eight-times Oscar-awarded Hollywood Film Slumdog Millionaire (2009), which is acted against the backdrop of Dharavi, the largest slum in Mumbai (Hannam & Knox 2010; Meschkank 2011).

The new phenomenon of slum tourism in the Global South not only reminds us that tourism lives on what is novel and different; it suggests, at the same time, that new trends in tourism are never created out of nothing. They draw upon more or less known images and ideas about unfamiliar and distant regions and their inhabitants. They have recourse to stocks of standardized long-standing ascriptions that arise in discursive processes occurring both within and outside tourism. Tourism seeks for discursive connectivity, reproduces these ascriptions and creates new meanings, while reacting to social structures and their changes. Allegedly new forms of tourism almost always have historical forerunners with which they link semantically and from which their specific repertoire of offers develops. For example, tourism in ‘Europe’s Cultural Capitals’ or cultural sightseeing tours organized by companies like the German firm Studiosus can be traced back to the ‘Grand Tour’, the educational tours of the nobility in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries (cf. Adler 1989). Similarly, contemporary mass seaside tourism has a long history, which began from the ‘discovery of the coast’ in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and led, via Brighton as the archetype of the

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 215

seaside resort, to the ‘global beach’ (Löfgren 1999) as a present-day global-universal destination type (cf. also Shields 1991).

Today’s slum tourism in the Global South has forerunners, too. This paper seeks to illustrate how ‘long-established’ modes of constructing, presenting and perceiving slums as places worth touring find their way into the current practice of poverty tourism. Hence, the reconstruction of the roughly 150-year-old tradition of this form of tourism is not only of interest with regard to the illustration of the history of the development of tourism; it can also provide valuable clues to an understanding of today’s forms and modes of constructing slums as ‘places of tourism’ (Pott 2007). If we assume that the tourist gaze (Urry 1990) at poverty is long established (at least in its essential features), then current poverty tourism as such will be less astounding than the dynamism of its global spread. An overriding goal of research on slum tourism, then, would consist in grasping the conditions, forms and consequences of its globalization. The present paper, which is primarily concerned with the genesis of poverty tourism, is designed to be a first step towards understanding the process of constructing the global slum as a global-universal type of tourist destination.

In this paper, a brief presentation of the recent phenomenon – drawing upon the example of township tourism in South Africa – will be followed by a closer look into the long-standing tradition of slum tourism. By attempting to place the phenomenon in the wider realm of the social and cultural upheavals happening in each of the periods studied, the historical review seeks, first, to explain its dependency on the social context determining its emergence and evolution. Secondly, it will become clear that slum tourism can be adequately understood only if seen as part of modern city tourism. Thirdly, the historical review will demonstrate that and how the ‘culturalization’ of poverty attains special significance in slum tourism. Fourthly, the closing remarks indicate in what respects the insights gained from the historical review can be drawn upon for enquiries into present-day slum tourism in the Global South.

Slumming in the Global South: the Example of Township Tourism in South Africa

‘Township tourism’ is South Africa’s version of the new global phenomenon of poverty tourism. It is meant to serve here as an example to start from in my analytical concern with the phenomenon.

The economic significance of international tourism for South Africa has increased considerably since the end of apartheid. The number of international arrivals in the country rose from 3.6 million in 1994 to 9.1 million in 2007 (Steinbrink & Frehe 2008). In terms of its significance for South Africa’s GNP, the tourism sector has, meanwhile, even outdone gold mining, which has for long been the backbone of that country’s national economy. It is expected that tourism’s economic importance will continue to grow even in the future, thanks to the 2010 football world cup (cf. Haferburg & Steinbrink 2010).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

216 M. Steinbrink

Generally speaking, the tourist industry sees the country’s tourism potential in its landscape and natural beauty (national parks, impressive mountain landscapes, beaches, vineyards, etc.). However, following the end of apartheid, township tourism has been developing as a new branch of the tourism industry – a development which has little to do with the traditional sights. Township tourism is organized mainly in the form of guided bus tours which run through selected townships. The tour destinations are the urban residential areas of those population groups formerly classified as ‘non-white’, residential areas which emerged during the era of the apartheid regime and which were planned on the basis of that regime’s inhuman racist ideology. It is the poorest strata of the population that live in the townships. The majority of the ‘black’ city dwellers still live there – and, largely, still under deplorable living conditions.

Township tourism had forerunners during the apartheid era, but in its recent form it started in the early 1990s. The first township tours were conducted to Soweto (South Western Township) in Johannesburg. At the time, township tourism was a kind of niche tourism for politically interested travellers who wanted to visit Soweto as a place symbolizing oppression and the anti-apartheid struggle, their aim being to see the sites of resistance and the houses in which symbolic figures, such as Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu, used to live. It was from there that township tourism evolved rapidly, expanding over the whole of South Africa as a phenomenon of urban tourism. An ever-increasing number of international travellers – predominantly from Britain, Germany, The Netherlands and the USA – travelled through the townships and informal settlements of different historical origins and sizes during their holidays in South Africa. In the process, historical and political aspects which had initially been the focus shifted to the background (Rolfes et al. 2009).

According to official data, over 300,000 tourists participated in organized tours in Cape Town in 2006 (AP 2007). This is almost 25 percent of the total annual number of overseas international visitors. Apart from the trip to the Table Mountain, the trip to Cape Point, the visit to the Waterfront and a wine tour, township tourism is among the ‘things to tick off the list’ while visiting Cape Town. Township tourism is a booming business. More and more tour operators are pushing their way into the market. In Cape Town, roughly 50 different tour operators can be identified. Meanwhile, an increasing number of big travel agencies operating on an international or a supra-regional basis now also include township tours in their – otherwise rather conventional – range of products. Township tourism has thus developed into a phenomenon of mass tourism in South Africa (cf. Rolfes & Steinbrink 2009).

To understand the phenomenon of slum tourism, it appears useful to first discuss the question of what the slum actually ‘is’ – not from a social-scientific perspective or from the perspective of town planning, but from the viewpoint of tourism. In order to find out what tourists look for in the slums, the question as to what they expect to find there would suggest itself. (They want to see what they expect to see!) It appears plausible to assume that the attractiveness of slums as tourist destinations is

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 217

Figure 1. Associations with the term ‘township’ (according to Rolfes & Steinbrink 2009; author’s own representation).

directly connected with the images, conceptions and associations the tourists have of the places they intend to visit; in the case of South Africa, this would mean their image of the township.

What images, then, do tourists have of the townships? This question constituted the focus of a study project conducted in Cape Town in 2007. Questions were put to 179 tourists, immediately before embarking on a township tour, on what they associated with the term ‘township’ (cf. Rolfes et al. 2009).

The results reveal that negative associations dominate the picture (see Fig- ure 1). ‘Township’ is associated with crime, squalor, drugs, poor housing conditions, apartheid, unemployment, etc. The most frequently mentioned association by far was ‘poverty’. ‘Poverty’ is in the centre of the semantic field evoked by the term ‘town- ship’. Meschkank (2011: 55) obtains very similar results in her study of tourism in Dharavi/Mumbai: ‘If you ask the tourists participating in a Dharavi tour what they expect to see, the most common answer is: poverty’. It is, therefore, appropriate to understand township tourism as a kind of poverty tourism.

Yet, ‘poverty’ does not characterize this form of tourism sufficiently. For – as in the case of many other forms of tourism – ‘spatialization’ plays a central role in endeavours that make it possible to visualize and experience poverty and, thus,

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

218 M. Steinbrink

in the construction of urban tourism as a whole. Poverty’s territorial localization makes it possible for it to be expected, planned and visited for purposes of tourism. Consequently, the tours are conducted to certain areas, to city districts categorized as townships, as favelas or, generally, as slums. It is in these areas that poverty is located; this is where poverty can be expected and experienced – the slum is the ‘place of poverty’. The term ‘slumming’ explained further below, therefore, describes this form of poverty tourism very precisely.

The results of the studies stated above are, understandably, startling, since they do contradict common notions of what tourists do during their holiday. True, gazing at poverty may indeed lead to the striven-for ‘distance away from everyday life’; yet, the wish to see ‘something else’ as expressed in the common holiday motives usually refers to something nice, beautiful and relaxing. In contrast thereto, township tourism seems to correspond to what MacCannell (1976) calls ‘negative sightseeing’: a kind of social bungee jumping in which the predominantly bourgeois thrill-seekers – driven by a lust for angst (cf. Welz 1993: 48) – seek to experience the social depth. The slum tours seem to permit tourists to fathom out the possible drop height sensuously (using their eyes, ears and noses), but without themselves actually running the risk of a hard landing (Steinbrink & Frehe 2008). But I doubt that the lust for the socio-voyeuristic thrill and the wish to experience a ‘safe danger’ or an ‘insulated adventure’ (Schmidt 1979) is sufficient to grasp this phenomenon of tourism analytically. This element of ‘controlled risk’ (Freire-Medeiros 2009) is only a very partial explanation of what motivates tourists to visit impoverished urban areas.

Here, the question immediately arises as to the origin of this tourist gaze at the poverty of Others. How has the tourist interest in the slum developed historically? What traditions of spatializing observation and interpretations exist in the collective memory of the tourists? How, then, is it conceivable that ‘places of poverty’ have become ‘places of tourism’ (Pott 2007)?

A Review of the History of Slumming

The concept of ‘slumming’ has described a particular social practice for one and a half centuries; in this practice, members of wealthy population groups visit residential areas of poor urban groups in their leisure time. The origins of this practice lie in the metropolises of the North, especially in Britain and the USA, where modern (urban) tourism also evolved.

The ‘slum’ has always symbolized the ‘dark’, the ‘low’, the ‘unknown’ side of the city; it has always been a projection surface. From the bourgeois perspective, the poor urban areas have constantly been constructed as areas containing ‘the Other’. Accordingly, visiting a slum for leisure purposes has always been done in the wish to experience the Other. However, what was identified as being ‘the Other’ varied from one historical period to another and depended on the respective social context in which it existed.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 219

Victorian London: The Cradle of Slumming

The practice of slumming has its roots in nineteenth-century London. It was from there that the phenomenon started, and it did so, as will be seen later, in a very Victorian-Anglican manner.

London – at the time, the politically and economically most powerful city in the world and capital of the world-encompassing British Empire – developed into a de- mographic colossus in the nineteenth century. Its population grew from one million to six million within one hundred years. Its urbanization rates, which were due primarily to rural exodus and immigrations from Ireland, were just as enormous as was the gap between the rich and the poor. In the course of urbanization and industrialization, the social classes were separated geographically in a typically European east–west divide. The blatant urban segregation pattern appeared like the spatial configuration of the deeply split social order of the time.

Originally ‘slum’ was a slang expression which referred to individual lodgings, then to backyards (‘back slums’) and later to whole urban quarters (Mayne 1993). The etymological origin of the word is controversial. The Oxford Dictionary of Etymology describes it as a word of unknown origin, but presumes a ‘gypsy’ origin (Hoad 1996). Cassidy (2007), however, presupposes an Irish origin (s’lom [pron. s’lum], the Irish meaning being ‘is bare, is naked, is poor’). Davis (2007: 26) refers to the Vocabulary of the Flash Language by Vaux (1912), according to which slum means something like ‘swindle’ or ‘criminal machinations’ (translations based on German version (2007) of Planet of Slums (2006)). According to Dyos et al. (1982), it was Cardinal Wiseman who turned the term ‘slum’ into a term of the standard language from around 1820 onwards. Dyos et al. (1982) point out that Wiseman was often quoted in British newspapers in that time, slowly leading to the wider popular use of the term ‘slum’ for a more general description of destitute urban housing conditions (ibid). Since the mid of the 19th century, certain poor settlements in the USA, France and India were also labelled as slums (Davis 2007: 26).

London’s rapid growth resulted in the fact that its inhabitants no longer knew every part of their city from personal experience. An ‘imaginative geography’ of the city thus emerged in parallel with the clear spatial separation between the rich and the poor. From the viewpoint of the top of the vertical hierarchy of London’s social structure, the slums of the East End represented the dark ‘abyss’. One needs only to take a glance at Peter Keating’s collection of social reports (Keating 1976) from that time to notice how often the word ‘abyss’ occurs in the titles alone. The slum, according to this observation, labels the place of the physical, social, economic and moral abyss and of the threatening fall into the bottomless pit.

In the perception of London’s middle and upper classes, the East End slums were ‘places of the unknown Other’. The existence of these places alone was a cause for concern and fear in society. The fears, however, were not only about sanitary and hygienic conditions and the threat of epidemics (in particular, cholera). Rather, there

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

220 M. Steinbrink

were also social worries about the decline of civilization and the loss of public control. This gave rise to an image of the East End as another world – chaotic, uncivilized and horrifying. In other words, the slum represented the materialized anti-thesis to the bourgeois order of the Victorian era (Frank 2003: 53).

The nineteenth century was the period of colonial voyages of discovery, and the deletion of white spots on the world map was a British passion at that time. In Victorian London, the East End was often referred to as the ‘dark continent’ (cf. Frank 2003: 54f.; Lindner 2004) – the same designation used for Africa.

As there is a darkest Africa, is there not also a darkest England? . . . May we not find a parallel at our doors and discover within a stone’s throw of our cathedrals and palaces places of similar horrors to those which Stanley has found in the Equatorial forest? (Booth 1890: 11–12).

By analogy with the colonial voyage of discovery, the explorer’s spirit, too, awoke in the city, the aim of which was to discover ‘the distant’ in ‘the near-by’ (‘at our doors’, ‘within a stone’s throw’). There was an awakening of interest in social expeditions into the abysmal depths of the urban terra incognita.

The first people to go on these ‘social expeditions’ were clergymen, such as William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, journalists and social reformers. In their reports, they tended to present themselves as explorers who ventured, dead-tired, into the bottomless social swamp. Their reports established a new literary genre – the exploratory social reportage. In their writings, the social reporters decisively influenced and shaped the discourse on the East End, and the prevailing image of its inhabitants.

To the wealthy of London, the slums were, on the one hand, a threatening strange world. On the other hand, however, the slums promised adventures and formed the projection space for the wildest of fantasies. Frequently wrapped in the cloak of concern, welfare and charity, more and more private benefactors in the middle of the century were setting off for the ‘undiscovered land of the poor’. Early forms of slum tours were already encountered here. At the time, the discovery tours to London’s East End were guided by police officers in civilian attire, journalists and clergy (Figure 2).

These upper-class visits in the East End were called ‘slumming’ as early as around 1850 (cf. Koven 2006). The term ‘slumming’ is, therefore, almost as old as the term ‘slum’ itself. Koven (2006: 6–10) notes that from the outset, the term slumming was mostly used with a scornful to explicitly derogatory connotation by members of the upper class, who, for their part, did not indulge in this practice. ‘Slumming, the word and the activity associated with it, was distinguished historically by a persistent pattern of disavowal. It was a pejorative term . . . ’ (Koven 2006: 8). The curiosity about the slum that finds expression in the slumming activity did indeed evoke suspicion from the very beginning, particularly in regard to the motivation of the so-called slummers (i.e. those who practised slumming). Behind the lofty intentions

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 221

Figure 2. Slum tour in Victorian London. Source: Koven (2006: 15).

transmitted outwardly, other, less noble, motives were suspected, motives of which the slummers should obviously have been ashamed.

This suggests that more was associated with the slum – the place of the ‘unknown Other’ – than just the difference in economic terms. There was more to slums than their characterization as places of poverty. For there were also association chains linked to ‘poverty’ which stretched into fields that lay outside the economic sphere. It can be shown that ‘slum’ and ‘poverty’ have experienced a semantic coupling resulting from the talk about the ‘omnipresence of filth and dirt’ (cf. Lindner 2004: 20). An indication of how closely ‘slum’ and ‘dirt’ are connotatively connected is given by the observation that at the turn of the century, the term ‘slum’ was often rendered in German as Schlammviertel (‘mud quarter’) (cf. Spiller 2008 [1911]).

The words ‘filth’ and ‘dirt’ lie at the point where two chains of association deriving from slum and poverty intersect (Figure 3). Both chains of association lead directly into corporeality – in particular, into the lower zones of the body: through cholera, a serious form of diarrhoea, into the anus, and through lust, into the genitals. The Victorian era was a period in which corporeality was denied and concealed in the bourgeois milieu. It thus becomes clear that ‘dirt’ indeed is by no means only a

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

222 M. Steinbrink

Figure 3. Poverty, slum and dirt as a close semantic association. Source: author’s representation.

hygienic category and that it has always been a moral category, too, which refers to something indecent and repugnant.

In the middle- and upper-class discourse over the slum, an almost direct equation of the poor sanitary conditions with a state of moral decay took place. Through the close semantic relation between ‘poverty’, ‘dirt’ and ‘sin’, the poverty concept also became subjected to moralizing and, through the assignment of poverty to certain areas, a connection was finally established between urban topography and morality, which was tantamount to the construction of a moral topography of the city.

The slums apparently strongly provoked the dirty fantasies of London’s bour- geoisie, its ‘belief’ in moral standards notwithstanding. From the middle-class point of view, poverty and slums have stood not only for misery and disease, but also for eroticism, licentiousness and sexual savagery. Little wonder, then, that the slums, in the eyes of London’s society, which was shaped by rigid moral expectations and inflexible social rules, were areas of both gloomy threat and erotic curiosity: slums were places of moral decay and places of libidinal liberty (cf. Lindner 2004: 19ff.).

This explains indeed why the non-slummers often imputed filthy motives to the slummers. And it also explains why the professional or altruist slummers (the clergy, social reformers, benefactors, etc.) made repeated attempts to distinguish themselves from the casual or leisure slummers to avoid being thrown into the same ‘pot of mud’, in view of their noble motives (cf. also Koven 2006).

In the second half of the nineteenth century, however, slumming increasingly developed into a more ‘purpose-free’ leisure-time activity of London’s higher classes.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 223

Figure 4. ‘Slumming in this Town’. Source: New York Times (14 September 1884).

Amusement shifted into the centre of things and the ‘lust for vice’, as well as interest in the ‘immoral Other’, became more clearly visible. The new phenomenon had hardly gained contours as a leisure-time entertainment, when its globalization began. Slumming was now making its way ‘across the pond’.

‘Let’s Go Slumming in the USA’

In the USA, the phenomenon of slumming emerged for the first time in New York in the 1880s. Figure 4 shows a cutting from an 1884 issue of the New York Times. The journalist who wrote this newspaper article described slumming as “the [latest] rage”, as a London peculiarity and new fashion (“a fashionable London Mania”; “the latest fashionable idiosyncrasy in London”) imported to New York by well-to- do tourists from England. Additionally, he prophesied that this extravagant fashion would develop into a hype amongst the New Yorkers– and he was later proven right.

The idea of slumming fell on fertile ground in the USA. However, its social breeding ground in the USA differed from that in Victorian England. The phenomenon, there- fore, did develop differently in America. Following the first appearance of slumming in the ‘New World’, a process of change was evolving which was very interesting in regard to the genesis of poverty tourism as a whole. In the social context of the

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

224 M. Steinbrink

USA in the early twentieth century, the element of moral difference remained char- acteristic of slumming (Dowling 2007; Heap 2009) but, successively, other markers of difference became more dominant in the construction of the slum as the ‘place of the Other’. This change in the construction of ‘the Other’ localized in the slum will be the subject of our further discussion.

Touristification of slumming – urban heterogeneity as a tourist attraction. Although slumming in London already comprised certain elements of tourism – e.g. Koven (2006) indicates that Victorian Travel Guidebooks recommended visits to charitable institutions in the East End – it was in New York that one could actually speak of the ‘touristification’ of slumming.

The occurrence of slumming in the USA was directly linked with the development of international (urban) tourism. As indicated in the above-quoted New York Times article (see Figure 4), it was the tourists from England who carried the idea of slumming in their mental luggage. And now, the ladies and gentlemen from London wanted to visit the poorer areas in New York (e.g. Bowery, Five Points), too, during their sightseeing tours. Here, then, for the first time, the element of a regionalizing (cultural) comparison, which is typical of (urban) tourism, appears on the scene. Urban tourism is fundamentally based on the spatial differentiation between here and there. For the fact that cities become places worth touring is based on a spatially indicated expectation of difference (cf. Pott 2007: 113). Consequently, the first slum tourists from London compared ‘their’ London East End with the Lower East Side in Manhattan:

A quite well-known young English Noble, returning from a tour of the east side the other night with some friends, observed over his brandy and soda: ‘Ah, this is a great city, but you have no slums like we have. I have been in rickety condemned buildings that it was absolutely dangerous to go through! Found six families living in one miserably ventilated cellar – 24 persons, 10 of them adults, living in one room. No such slums here!’ (New York Times, 14 September 1884).

It was through the practice of slumming that poor urban areas first became tourist sights which were then drawn upon for comparisons between the tourist’s own city with the one visited. In other words: it was in New York that the tourist’s comparative gaze, in search of the differences between ‘own city’ and the destination, first designed the slum as an urban tourist attraction.

Slumming in the USA developed in such a way that the slummers could give in to their tourist curiosity without being ashamed of doing so. Entertainment intentions were professed more openly; the tourists were now in a position to cast off the moral cover without having any qualms. Compared to slumming in London, slumming in New York at the end of the nineteenth century was no longer about social reformist

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 225

matters; it was rather about showcasing and experiencing slums as interesting tourist sights.

For the first time, too, even the guidebooks at the time recommended routes for walking tours in the cities, which passed through various working-class areas (cf. Keeler 1902; Ingersoll 1906). Shortly before the turn of the century, the first tour companies were established in Manhattan, Chicago and San Francisco; these companies specialized in guided slum visits, both reproducing and altering the slum semantics that had emerged in London. Due to the commercialization of slum tours, slumming became open to a broader range of customers. More and more city tourists from other parts of the USA were now participating in slum tours. Slumming had become an integral part of urban tourism (Cocks 2001: 174ff.).

The strong interest taken in slumming in the cities of the USA was closely linked with the image of the cosmopolitan metropolis simultaneously evolving in that era. This image comprised the notion of an internal heterogeneity of the city, of the inner- urban juxtaposition of the unequal, the co-existence of backwardness and modernity, and of wealth and poverty. America’s cities quite symbolically exemplified the con- cept of the cosmopolitan city. Urban tourism took up this idea, and in its modes of representation, it reproduced the discursive connection between largeness, density, strangeness, heterogeneity and urban cosmopolitanism: city tourism marketing and image campaigns pursued the aim of presenting the internal differences within the cities in order to highlight the cosmopolitan character of the urban destinations. In the process, the thematized differences were spatially assigned to different parts of the city. The commercial slum visits, too, were explicitly referred to particular city quarters, thus emphasizing the schema of spatial classification. Another reason, there- fore, why the slums were also seen as ‘sights worth visiting’ was that they were conceived of as an expression of the city’s internal heterogeneity, of the wealth of contrasts of city life, and of its cosmopolitan diversity. In this way, the slums and slum tours contributed towards making the city as a whole an attractive tourist destination.

‘Culture’ is the dominant mode of observation in urban tourism and, indeed, a defining feature of urban tourism as a specific form of tourism in its own merit (as opposed to seaside tourism, hiking and many other forms of tourism) (cf. Pott 2007: 109ff.). Since slumming became an integral element of modern urban tourism in America, the two comparative perspectives discussed – the heterogenizing perspec- tive, which emphasizes the internal diversity of the city (this one here vs. that one there), and the comparative perspective (tourist’s own town vs. town visited) – can be understood as variants of the tourists’ cultural observation schema. And, indeed, culture is explicitly referred to precisely when the heterogenizing schema which fo- cuses on inner-urban spatial differences is being applied in the context of slumming. The next section will examine this aspect more closely.

Ethnicization of slumming – the immigrant quarter as a tourist attraction. The representation of America’s metropolitan tourist destinations emphasized the spa- tial juxtaposition of different cultures within the city. The special focus was on

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

226 M. Steinbrink

ethno-cultural differences. This discursive framework did also structure the slum- ming phenomenon in urban tourism (cf. Conforti 1996; Dowling 2007; Heap 2009). Thus, it was in the American version of slumming that ‘ethnicity’ became a dominant category. The slumming tours, which had evolved in different cities all over the States after the turn of the century, predominantly went to the urban enclaves of the new immigrant groups from Eastern and Southern Europe, and from Asia. This led to the development of a phenomenon that Cocks (2001) calls ‘ethnic slumming’. The destination slum was now constructed as a ‘place of the ethno-cultural Other’.

It is revealing to look at this ethnicization of slumming against the social back- ground at the time of its emergence. Ethnic slumming evolved in a period in which the significance of ‘racial’ and ‘national’ categories was undergoing rapid and fun- damental changes in the political system of the USA. Between 1880 and 1920, there were millions of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe and from Asia en- tering the USA. This brought about feelings of disquiet among the so-called White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs). Many felt threatened by this wave of immigra- tion, and they assumed that the non-Protestant groups (Catholics, Jews and adherents of Asian religions) were less capable of being integrated in American society than were the old immigrant groups from Northern and Western Europe.

It was at that time that public approval of the idea of ‘racial equality’ was undergo- ing a noticeable decline. In particular, the former slaves and their descendants were excluded from participation in political life; in the Southern States, legislation was adopted ensuring their residential segregation and the deprivation of their rights and, in the rest of the country, this was wrongfully practised as well (Cocks 2001: 187). On the whole, nationality and racial classifications were relevant categories with regard to access to jobs and housing. Racism and xenophobia shaped many sectors of society, including urban development (Cocks 2001). This led to the emergence of the well-known immigrant colonies (e.g. Little Italy, Chinatown, Judea and Russian Quarter) in the big cities of the USA, quarters that were often characterized by poor urban housing conditions and economic poverty.

For tourism, on the other hand, these places became exotic, colourful attractions (cf. Conforti 1996). The segregated quarters were presented as picturesque and aes- thetically complementary to the modern parts of the city. Perceiving them as a natural part of the modern metropolis brought about some relief from the everyday discourse over immigrants and their unsettling otherness.

The then prevailing concept of culture, which was also relevant to tourism, con- stituted a combination of modernist-evolutionist and racist thinking. The notion of ‘race’ comprised both biological and (unalterable) cultural particularities. According to this notion, the respective ‘races’ and their ‘natural modes of life’ represent hierar- chical stages in the process of human evolution. White Americans as well as Northern and Western Europeans, the notion suggests, are at the very top of the evolutionary ladder, followed by Eastern and Southern Europeans, Asians, ‘American Indians’ and – at the very bottom of the ladder – the Blacks. Culture and cultural forms of

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 227

expression – from literature to handicraft and music, and to lifestyle, world view and ways of social interaction – were interpreted as expressions of race and/or national origin. This notion permitted the tourists to see the living and working conditions of the different immigrant groups as expressions of a ‘cultural identity’. To them, the immigrant-quarters dwellers functioned as bearers of their respective cultures. What- ever they did was interpreted as a cultural expression of their ‘unalterable nature’ (cf. Cocks 2001).

The tourist representation of the different immigrant quarters – take the exam- ple of San Francisco’s Chinatown – focused on the ‘cultural identities’ of the in- habitants and accentuated their cultural otherness. The representations in tourism largely fell back on stereotypes and homogenizing ascriptions in order to meet the tourists’ expectations as regards observable differences and thus to fulfil their quest for authenticity.

The ethnic categorization and essentialization of social reality in the context of urban tourism contributed to the legitimization of the social and economic dispari- ties. Observed within the cultural schema, the immigrant groups were symbolically assigned to their place – both spatially (i.e. within ‘their’ quarters) and socially (i.e. at the margins of society). Along with the presentation and interpretation of observ- able differences as cultural (and quasi-natural) differences, the social inequalities were deproblematized. The slum was no longer regarded as a manifestation of socio- structural conditions of inequality, but as an expression of the cultural configuration of a modern American metropolis.

It follows that the display of the American city for purposes of urban tourism by no means presented it as a materialized symbol of the assimilation of various immigrant groups in American society. On the contrary, what it presented was a relatively unconnected form of coexistence. The ideology of the social melting pot had become fragile anyway. With the presentation of immigrant quarters as picturesque elements of a loose conglomerate of single cultural spaces, slumming fulfilled a relieving function: it masked the problem-related assimilation discourse which was omnipresent in bourgeois political discussions and in the media – in favour of the observation of the colourful, exotic places of the ‘ethnic Other’ (Figure 5).

Apart from international tourists, it was the bourgeois WASPs who visited the immigrant quarters. The WASPs regarded America as the most modern of all countries and the American people as culturally superior. To them, the inhabitants and cultures of the slums were in contradistinction to their own culture. They considered the slum dwellers and their cultures backward, irrational and paralysing to progress. Modern Americans, the WASPs believed, did not adhere to superstition, but practised science, and their culture was characterized not by tradition and stagnation, but by rationality and progress.

Yet, at the turn of the century, modernity and progress were certainly viewed critically, too. The pace at which the built environment was changing gave rise to feelings of insecurity among many Americans, just as the change in values and the

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

228 M. Steinbrink

Figure 5. Colourful postcard: Chinatown, San Francisco. Source: Curt Teich Company c. 1930 (www.flickr.com/photos/28061667@N08/4313630505/; accessed 3 May 2010).

crumbling of old certainties did. The pressure of progress and of having to advance at all costs was also experienced as a burden. This led to the emergence of new emotional longings within America’s middle class, for example the yearning for a pre-modern world, for warmth, deceleration and communal togetherness (cf. Conforti 1996). The slum visits served this purpose. The immigrant quarters were turned into sights on which these nostalgic yearnings could focus. The quarters symbolized a ‘way of life’ which seemed to be more strongly filled with social meaning than the modern everyday life of the tourist in a cold and sterile American society determined by market rationalism and individualism. The slumming tours thus helped to give the living conditions in the segregated city districts an idyllic character. Hence, they intensified the trend towards romanticizing urban poverty (cf. Cocks 2001).

The destination slum produced by the early form of urban tourism in Europe and North America was thus adapted, on the one hand, to the image of the modern, heterogeneous city. However, with its romantic connotations, it also served, at the same time, as a place of desire for tourists, permitting them to experience a pre- modern world of a bygone era. The culturalization of the slum, with the described homogenization, essentialization and idyllicization of social conditions, looked like a legitimization of the social and economic disparities within American society. Ethnic slumming, therefore, does not mean the reduction of social distance; in effect, it always means its creation and reaffirmation.

Conclusion: Global Slumming, the Global Slum and Othering in Tourism

The review illustrates that my initial observation of a new practice of tourism in Cape Town, Rio de Janeiro and Mumbai is only correct to a limited extent. There is no doubt that poverty tourism has been spreading with a remarkable dynamism in many countries of the Global South since the 1990s. Yet, this phenomenon only represents the most recent stage in the 150-year-old history of tourist slumming.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 229

The present globalization of this form of tourism, which for long was confined to the big cities of the North, can be understood as a change in, and as a further stage of development of, slum tourism on a global scale. A continuation of slum tourism is ensured by the fact that essential elements of its earlier forms are incorporated into its current practice (see Table 1). Visiting and experiencing poverty, which is territorially assigned to certain city areas (‘slums’), has remained the goal of slum tourism. This kind of spatialization serves to concretize and visualize poverty. The examples from London and the USA demonstrate that the slum was always construed and experienced as ‘the other side of the city’ and as the ‘place of the Other’; at the same time, they illustrate that this ‘Other’ had always been a lot more than just the ‘economic Other’. Therefore, the culturalization of poverty is essential to slum tourism. While in the townships of today’s South Africa the tourist gaze is focused on ‘African culture’, seeking to find a culture of locals (or a culture of locality) orientated to a sense of community and attachment to locality, in Victorian London, poverty was addressed moralizingly in the discursive context of a culture of licentiousness. And in the USA of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it is culturalization that was practised as ethnicization in the slum tours.

In spite of the continuity one may observe, the reconstruction of the genesis of slum tourism also clearly reveals changes in the phenomenon. What is regarded as ‘the Other worth visiting’ and how the cultural mode of observation assumes concrete shape varies from social context to social context. The coding of the cultural schema with its dominant distinction between ‘the moral’ and ‘the immoral’, which was very relevant in the case of London, changed when slumming was touristified in the American context. Moral aspects still played an important role in American Slumming (Dowling 2007; Heap 2009), but the focus of the culturalizing tourist gaze shifted towards the immigrant cultures, which the tourists (most of them WASPs) observed as pre-modern in a bid to distinguish them from their own culture. The destination ‘slum’ was presented as the ‘place of the ethnic pre-modern Other’. One still comes across both codings of the cultural schema (moral/immoral and modern/ethnically pre-modern) in present-day slum tourism in the Global South (see Rolfes & Steinbrink 2009; Rolfes 2010; Meschkank 2011). Both codings (and there may be more) have entered the semantics of recent slumming. Today, however, there seemingly is a new dominant coding: the distinction between ‘the global’ and ‘the local’ (see Figure 5).

In a summarizing comparison, we could, therefore, contrast Moral Slumming in London’s East End of the nineteenth century and Ethnic Slumming in the USA of the early twentieth century on the one hand, with today’s form of slumming on the other. In the further development of slum tourism in times of a world-encompassing long-distance mass tourism, it is not only a global extension of the phenomenon that is taking place. The distinctions made between North (origin of the tourists) and South (slums as the destinations of the tourists) are also gaining considerably in importance. This includes the distinctions between the global (‘global village’)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

230 M. Steinbrink

Ta bl

e 1.

T he

es se

nt ia

le le

m en

ts of

sl um

to ur

is m

th ro

ug h

th e

ag es

Pe ri

od s

an d

pl ac

es of

sl um

m in

g

C hi

na To

w n,

L itt

le It

al y

To w

ns hi

p, fa

ve la

,s lu

m E

as tE

nd (L

on do

n: (N

Y C

,S an

Fr an

ci sc

o: (J

oh an

ne sb

ur g,

R io

,M um

ba i;

ni ne

te en

th ce

nt ur

y) ea

rl y

tw en

tie th

ce nt

ur y)

ea rl

y tw

en ty

-fi rs

tc en

tu ry

)

So ci

al co

nt ex

ts of

em er

ge nc

e So

ci et

y (a

s a

w ho

le )

In du

st ri

al iz

at io

n, cl

as s

so ci

et y,

co lo

ni za

tio n/

B ri

tis h

E m

pi re

, de

ni al

of co

rp or

ea lit

y/ pr

ud er

y

M ig

ra tio

n/ ‘N

ew W

or ld

’, m

od er

ni za

tio n,

Fo rd

is m

G lo

ba liz

at io

n, w

or ld

so ci

et y,

po st

-c ol

on ia

lis m

N at

io n/

re gi

on Se

e ab

ov e,

ur ba

ni za

tio n,

ru ra

l– ur

ba n

m ig

ra tio

n, so

ci al

re fo

rm s/

w el

fa re

M od

er n

A m

er ic

a, na

tio na

l id

en tit

y/ na

tio na

lh is

to ry

, m

el tin

g po

t/a ss

im ila

tio n,

di sc

ri m

in at

io n/

ra ci

sm

e. g.

in So

ut h

A fr

ic a:

po st

-a pa

rt he

id ,t

ra ns

fo rm

at io

n

C ity

U rb

an gr

ow th

,s eg

re ga

tio n/

sl um

de ve

lo pm

en t,

ep id

em ic

s/ ch

ol er

a, sa

ni ta

tio n

In te

rn al

m ig

ra tio

n an

d se

gr eg

at io

n of

A fr

ic an

A m

er ic

an s,

ur ba

n m

ig ra

nt co

lo ni

es

G lo

ba lc

om pe

tit io

n of

ci tie

s, pe

rs is

te nc

e of

et hn

o- ec

on om

ic se

gr eg

at io

n pa

tte rn

s, ur

ba n

gr ow

th ,i

nf or

m al

ity To

ur is

m U

rb an

to ur

is m

(‘ so

ci al

/e ro

tic vo

ya ge

of ur

ba n

di sc

ov er

y’ )

U rb

an to

ur is

m as

a m

as s

ph en

om en

on In

te rn

at io

na lt

ou ri

sm in

de ve

lo pi

ng co

un tr

ie s

as a

m as

s ph

en om

en on

,u rb

an to

ur is

m in

de ve

lo pi

ng co

un tr

ie s,

ur ba

n de

st in

at io

n m

an ag

em en

t M

od e

an d

m ed

iu m

of to

ur is

t co

ns tr

uc tio

n

C ul

tu ra

liz at

io n

of po

ve rt

y C

ul tu

re of

‘l ic

en tio

us ne

ss ’

Im m

ig ra

nt cu

ltu re

s –

A fr

ic an

/B ra

zi lia

n/ In

di an

cu ltu

re –

(‘ au

th en

tic ’)

cu ltu

re of

lo ca

lit y

D om

in an

tc od

in g

of th

e cu

ltu ra

l sc

he m

a

m or

al /im

m or

al m

od er

n/ pr

em od

er n

gl ob

al /lo

ca l

Sp at

ia liz

at io

n of

po ve

rt y

(s lu

m as

.. .)

Pl ac

e of

th e

im m

or al

O th

er Pl

ac e

of th

e pr

e- m

od er

n O

th er

– L

oc al

pl ac

e in

th e

gl ob

al iz

ed w

or ld

– Pl

ac e

of (c

ul tu

ra l)

di st

an ce

in th

e ‘g

lo ba

lv ill

ag e’

Ty pe

M or

al sl

um m

in g

E th

ni c

sl um

m in

g G

lo ba

ls lu

m m

in g

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 231

and the local (slums as places of cultural distance in the global village), as well as between the globalized tourist from the North and the local slum dweller in the South. Does the ‘destination slum’ represent a yearning for locality in a globalizing world? Is the ‘destination slum’ a place to visit in order to experience the world’s cultural diversity threatened by the homogenizing forces of globalization (‘McDonaldiza- tion’) and global tourism (‘Disneyfication’)? In that sense it appears appropriate to speak of Global Slumming in today’s context. Current examples of slum tourism in Africa (Rolfes & Steinbrink 2009; Rolfes 2010), Asia (Meschkank 2011) and Latin America (Freire-Medeiros 2009) and their representation in commercials and we- blogs give evidence. They can be interpreted as indications of the process that the new global/local observation schema, together with the historical semantic elements of slum constructions, are developing world-wide into a universal destination type – the Global Slum.

‘Global slumming’ and ‘global slum’ are still fairly imprecise terms. However, the future analysis of the processes and constructions they denote can, indeed, build on the reconstruction of the genesis of slum tourism. In addition to the results already summarized, the review also draws attention to the fact that slum tourism, from its appearance in New York onwards, can be interpreted as an integral element of modern urban tourism. Furthermore, the accounts on slumming in London and New York show that the construction of ‘the Other’ has always been based, and continues to be based, on stereotyping. The tourism-specific localization of the Other in the slum (re-)produces a homogenizing and essentializing perspective. The tendency towards the deproblematization and depoliticization of social inequalities arising from the culturalist gaze practised and exercised in early forms of slum tourism is still observable in recent forms. Moreover, I have repeatedly called attention to the dependence of the forms of slum tourism and modes of observation on social contexts. For the analysis of current township tourism in South Africa, for example, this would mean examining the forms of tourism against the background of a functionally differentiated globalized world society, of social transformations taking place in South Africa in the post-apartheid era, of the competition of cities in the global marketplace, etc. (see Table 1).

There is a further finding that seems important in connection with the necessary social contextualization of the analysis of tourism, since it reveals some promising potential as a frame of reference. I will look into it very briefly here. The reconstruction of slum tourism documented in this article not only illustrates the variability of the slum tourist construction of ‘the Other’ and/or of the ‘place of the Other’; it equally reminds us that this – like any other construction of the Other – refers to the identity of the tourists themselves and the process of its construction (as the other side of ‘the Other’). In this sense, slumming can be interpreted as a part of a self- constituting ‘Othering’ (Reuter 2002). The destination slum, which emerges through the spatialization of the self-constituting Other at the ‘other place’ (the place of ‘the Other’), functions as a medium of Othering and thus as a medium of the construction

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

232 M. Steinbrink

of the tourist’s own identity. Regardless of whether ‘the Other’ localized in the slum is repudiatingly (e.g. as ‘the frightening Other’) or positively connoted (e.g. as ‘the exotic, attractive Other’), the slum remains a medium of self-reflexive Othering. The slum functions as a symbol turned space, as ‘the foreign’ to which ‘the tourist’s ‘own’ is related, be that by comparing or by contrasting – no matter whether ‘the Other’ is seen as cold and threatening or warm and romantic. The demarcation line remains untouched, as it is a precondition for the tourist’s experience of identity.

If we consider current slum tourism against the background of globalization, and if we relate it to the contemporary horizon of a world society, then it would make sense to study the recent slumming phenomenon as part of a global Othering process. For, in contrast to its historical forerunners, slumming in the Global South is evidently no longer merely about ‘the other side of the city’ or about intra-societal heterogeneity, but, additionally – and perhaps essentially – about the ‘other side of the world’. This brings the self-constituting process of constructing a ‘world-societal Other’ to the foreground.

A postcolonial perspective, therefore, suggests itself for the in-depth analysis of contemporary slum tourism in the south. The cultural theory of Postcolonial Studies offers different valuable approaches to a critical look into the origin and effects of representations of ‘the Cultural’, ‘the Other’ and ‘the Foreign’, or of ‘the Culturally Hybrid’ which emerges through cultural contact. Although postcolonial theories have successfully proven their analytical usefulness in various disciplines, international tourism research has made relatively little use of them so far. This is astonishing, given the fact that tourism from ‘the West’ has been (re-)producing considerably powerful representations of ‘the Rest’ (cf. Hall 1992). Thus, as regards future research on slumming, the question is now spotlighted of whether, in what respects and with what consequences slum tourism in the Global South is embedded in postcolonial discourses.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Andreas Pott (University of Osnabrück) for his very important contributions and for the most valuable com- ments on an earlier version of this paper. And I would like to thank Michael Ayamba Asu for his help with translations and editing.

References

Adler, J. (1989) Origins of sightseeing, Annals of Tourism Research, 16, pp. 7–29. AP (2007) Township Tourism booming as visitors want to see “real” South Africa, USA

Today, January 9. Available at http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2007-01-04-south- africa-township-tourism_x.htm (accessed 10 June 2010).

Booth, W. (2008[1890]) In Darkest England and the Way Out (Charleston: Bibliobazaar).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective 233

Cassidy, D. (2007) How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language of the Crossroads (Edinburgh: AK Press).

Cocks, C. (2001) Doing the Town. The Rise of Urban Tourism in the United States, 1850–1915 (Berkeley: University of California Press).

Conforti, J. M. (1996) Ghettos as tourism attraction, Annals of Tourism Research, 23, p. 842. Davis, M. (2007) Planet der Slums (Berlin: Assoziation A.) Dowling, R. M. (2007) Slumming in New York: From the Waterfront to Mythic Harlem (Illinois: First

Illinois Paperbacks). Dyos, H. J., Cannadine, D. & Reeder, D. (1982) Exploring the Urban Past: Essays in Urban History

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Frank, S. (2003) Stadtplanung im Geschlechterkampf. Stadt und Geschlecht in der Großstadtentwicklung

des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Opladen: Leske&Budrich). Freire-Medeiros, B. (2009) The favela and its touristic transits, Geoforum, 40(4), pp. 580–588. Haferburg, C. & Steinbrink, M. (Eds) (2010) Mega-Event und Stadtentwicklung im globalen Süden. Die

Fußballweltmeisterschaft 2010 und ihre Impulse für Südafrika (Frankfurt a. M.: Brandes & Apsel). Hall, S. (1992) The West and the rest: Discourse and power, in: S. Hall & B. Gieben (Eds) Formations of

Modernity, pp. 275–320 (Cambridge: Polity Press). Hannam, K. & Knox, D. (2010) Understanding Tourism (London: Sage). Heap, C. (2009) Slumming: Sexual and Racial Encounters in American Nightlife, 1885–1940. (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press). Hoad, T. F. (1996) ‘Slum’, in: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Encyclopedia.com.

Available at http://www.encyclopedia.com (accessed 10 February 2009). Ingersoll, E. (1906) Handy Guide to New York City (Chicago: Rand, McNally). Keating, P. J. (1976) Into Unknown England, 1866–1913: Selections From the Social Explorers (Manch-

ester: Manchester University Press). Keeler, C. (1902) San Francisco and Thereabout (Kessinger Publishing). Koven, S. (2006) Slumming. Sexual and Social Politics in Victorian London (Princeton: Princeton Univer-

sity Press). Lindner, R. (2004) Walks on the Wild Side. Eine Geschichte der Stadtforschung (Frankfurt: Campus). Löfgren, O. (1999) On Holiday. A History of Vacationing (Berkeley: University of California Press). MacCannell, D. (1976) The Tourist. A Theory of Leisure Class (New York: Schocken Books). Mayne, A. (1993) The Imagined Slum. Newspaper Representation in Three Cities (Leicester: Leicester

University Press). Meschkank, J. (2011) Investigations into slum tourism in Mumbai: Poverty tourism and the tensions

between different constructions of reality, GeoJournal, 76, pp. 47–62. Pott, A. (2007) Orte des Tourismus. Eine raum- und gesellschaftstheoretische Untersuchung (Bielefeld:

Transcript). Reuter, J. (2002) Ordnungen des Anderen. Zum Problem des Eigenen in der Soziologie des Fremden

(Bielefeld: Transcript). Rolfes, M. (2010) Poverty tourism: Theoretical reflections and empirical findings on an extraordinary form

of tourism, GeoJournal, 75(5), pp. 421–442. Rolfes, M. & Steinbrink, M. (2009) Raumbilder und Raumkonstruktionen im Township-Tourismus.

Studierende erforschen Townshiptouren in Kapstadt/Südafrika, in: M. Dickel & G. Glasze (Eds) Vielperspektivität und Teilnehmerzentrierung – Richtungsweiser der Exkursionsdidaktik, pp. 123–140 (Berlin: LIT Verlag).

Rolfes, M., Steinbrink, M. & Uhl, C. (2009) Townships as Attraction. A Case Study on Township Tourism in Cape Town (Potsdam: Universitätsverlag).

Schmidt, C. (1979) The Guided Tour: Insulated adventure, Urban Life, 7(4), pp. 441–467. Shields, R. (1991) Places on the Margin. Alternative Geographies of Modernity (London: Routledge).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4

234 M. Steinbrink

Spiller, E. (2008 [1911]) Slums. Erlebnisse in den Schlammvierteln moderner Großstädte (Wien: Czernin Verlag).

Steinbrink, M. & Frehe, K. (2008) Townshiptourismus in Kapstadt: To go or NO GO, Praxis Geographie, 12, pp. 38–43.

Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze. Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage). Welz, G. (1993) Slum als Sehenswürdigkeit – ‘Negative Sightseeing’ im Städtetourismus, in: Kramer, R.

& Lutz, D. (Eds) Tourismus-Kultur, Kulturtourismus, pp. 38–43 (Hamburg: LIT Verlag).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f St

ra th

cl yd

e] a

t 0 3:

15 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

4