Africa's share in global tourism
Apr 1st, 2010, 02:33 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Africa's share in global tourism
Africa's share in global tourism was only 5% in 2009. What do you think that Africa should do to get rid of its negative image? See: http://development.thinkaboutit.eu/think3/post/africas/
Feel free to leave your suggestions in the comments-box.
Feel free to leave your suggestions in the comments-box.
Apr 1st, 2010, 03:13 PM
#2
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5%? I've wondered about that. Thanks for the info. I've also wondered about the change in tourism numbers in various countries over the last 5 years.
There are many devoted fans here that don't share a negative image!
This is selfish view, but I fear if Africa becomes a mainstream destination, it will lose what makes it Africa and it will have to change so that there are ice machines and Diet Coke dispensers in every tent or lodge, plus some fast food joints, and outlet stores, all accessed by nicely paved roads with ATM machines every few miles.
That may make me a snob.
But if wild areas can be increased so that more visitors can be accommodated in basic, simple lodging (kind of like the conservancies are doing) then, we could have a win-win situation and the 5% could go up.
There are many devoted fans here that don't share a negative image!
This is selfish view, but I fear if Africa becomes a mainstream destination, it will lose what makes it Africa and it will have to change so that there are ice machines and Diet Coke dispensers in every tent or lodge, plus some fast food joints, and outlet stores, all accessed by nicely paved roads with ATM machines every few miles.
That may make me a snob.
But if wild areas can be increased so that more visitors can be accommodated in basic, simple lodging (kind of like the conservancies are doing) then, we could have a win-win situation and the 5% could go up.
Apr 1st, 2010, 03:50 PM
#3
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are other issues that dampen African tourism beyond negative images: cost and a lack of familiarity of "the product" are also factors.
Another thing to think about: Because most of Africa's tourism revolves around natural resources (landscapes and wildlife), it takes a lot more land area per tourist than, say, Rome, Walt Disney World, or even the beaches of Hawaii.
Another thing to think about: Because most of Africa's tourism revolves around natural resources (landscapes and wildlife), it takes a lot more land area per tourist than, say, Rome, Walt Disney World, or even the beaches of Hawaii.
Apr 1st, 2010, 04:13 PM
#4
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShayTay, your post is right on the money. Wilderness areas are a different kind of tourist destination, and have very different requirements. Maybe there should be more tourist-industry promotion of African countries' other (non-safari) attractions, as well? And Lynn, you're not a snob to want to protect the parts of Africa you love from over-development. But of course if you increase wilderness areas, what do you do with all the people currently living there? That's created a lot of tension in Uganda (to name just one example among many). I don't know what the solution is (or if there even IS a solution, sadly). More emphasis on community-owned (rather than foreign-owned) lodges and camps, maybe?
Most of my friends' perceptions of "Africa" are not necessarily that it's all terribly dangerous, but more that it's an extremely expensive vacation destination (especially for families). It doesn't help that what marketing I have seen is often really pushing the "luxury" aspects of a safari. Not everybody wants or needs luxury, especially if it costs $1500 just to fly to your destination -- and yet, most of what I've seen advertised is either all about the luxury, or all about roughing it on an overland truck/camping trip. Not much is said about options in between.
Having said that, it also seems to me like a big part of the perception problem is this idea of "Africa" as the destination -- as opposed to, say, talking about specific places like Kenya or Uganda or Botswana. I'd be curious to know how that 5% breaks down by country. You do hear people talking about going to "Europe," but more often they say "France" or "Italy." And I've never heard anybody say they're going to "the Americas" (or even "North America") for vacation! And yet, lots of us still say "Africa" (I'm guilty of it too)... maybe because when you say Botswana or Zambia or Tanzania, a lot of people don't know exactly where that is? Perhaps countries need to do more to actively promote what's different and special about their unique corner of the African continent, instead of just the generic "African safari" idea? South Africa does seem to do that in the tourist promotion materials I've seen.
Just my random thoughts...
Most of my friends' perceptions of "Africa" are not necessarily that it's all terribly dangerous, but more that it's an extremely expensive vacation destination (especially for families). It doesn't help that what marketing I have seen is often really pushing the "luxury" aspects of a safari. Not everybody wants or needs luxury, especially if it costs $1500 just to fly to your destination -- and yet, most of what I've seen advertised is either all about the luxury, or all about roughing it on an overland truck/camping trip. Not much is said about options in between.
Having said that, it also seems to me like a big part of the perception problem is this idea of "Africa" as the destination -- as opposed to, say, talking about specific places like Kenya or Uganda or Botswana. I'd be curious to know how that 5% breaks down by country. You do hear people talking about going to "Europe," but more often they say "France" or "Italy." And I've never heard anybody say they're going to "the Americas" (or even "North America") for vacation! And yet, lots of us still say "Africa" (I'm guilty of it too)... maybe because when you say Botswana or Zambia or Tanzania, a lot of people don't know exactly where that is? Perhaps countries need to do more to actively promote what's different and special about their unique corner of the African continent, instead of just the generic "African safari" idea? South Africa does seem to do that in the tourist promotion materials I've seen.
Just my random thoughts...
Apr 2nd, 2010, 02:23 AM
#5
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johan - I dislike the premise inherent in the way you've framed the question.
Africa has 20% of the world's land mass and 13% of the world population and produces 2.5% of global GDP. Is a "5% of global tourism" reasonable? A very difficult question to answer.
Having MORE tourists isn't necessarily good, and high-end big spenders are notoriously fickle while there's a lot of competition for their attention and money. Are foreign tourists better to attract (bringing in outside currency) or is a domestic tourism market better - or what balance of the two? Is it better to have a smaller but more stable tourism base than big spikes that swing up and down with economic cycles? Not simple questions to answer, and very difficult to manage outcomes in one direction or another in any case. Namibia has done an exceptional job of sorting these questions out for themselves in recent years, but they're one of the few (and they've pissed off a lot of people in the process).
As to the question of perceptions of crime, conflict, etc. in Africa keeping people away, that's simply a canard unsupported by hard data. The BBC did a nice piece on the correlation between developed tourism infrastructure and tourism growth in late 2007. The takeaway: better infrastructure attracts more tourists and greater spending, even in the face of risk of personal harm and negative perceptions. (link to the BBC article from http://bit.ly/c5GZOn) There are other, more academic studies that point to similar factors that drive tourism growth.
As to Atravelynn's self-reflection about whether the desire to keep a place 'wild' makes one a snob, I wouldn't use that word but it does point to an important underlying issue and that is a view of Africa as a passive landscape on which outsiders like to (and permit themselves to) act out their fantasies. The classic safari is just such a packaged product, as is the roughing it overland journey (by motorbike, foot, train, whatever - "Cape to Cairo" or the like being the signature version). Now, most holidays involve some form of fantasy (which is part of why we 'get away' after all!), but in this instance Africa itself is the landscape, not a more narrowly defined and specialised space like Disneyland or a beach resort, or a Tuscan villa. This view is so deeply entrenched in outside/Western understandings of Africa that it scarcely registers as a 'view', but it's pervasive - exploitative in its negative expression and paternalistic/patronising in its more well-intentioned expressions. I agree with MDK that a more nuanced understanding of the 54 nations in Africa would be a good start. And, trust me, African nations do spend money to promote their own country as a destination, but compared to the budgets of the big destinations in the world (and the entrenched tourism industry role players who profit from the comfortable status quo), it's like spitting in the ocean.
African governments (and companies) invest in tourism (and related infrastructure) because it's good for their economies, which (hopefully) helps local residents. Growing economies requires development, which, like gentrification in urban neighbourhoods, means change, displacement and social dislocation along with raised standards of living, improved quality of life and stronger civic institutions. Our desire to keep particular places static in time is at the expense of the development of the local people in those places. I'm not arguing that development per se is always and everywhere good, but that we need to be honest about the human costs of "conservation" as well. Somehow, we like to have new libraries, functioning sewerage systems, emergency response radio networks, filled-in potholes, packaged food at the grocery, and other improvements/conveniences in our own lives at home, but get annoyed when we see them arriving in the lives of Africans.
Africa has 20% of the world's land mass and 13% of the world population and produces 2.5% of global GDP. Is a "5% of global tourism" reasonable? A very difficult question to answer.
Having MORE tourists isn't necessarily good, and high-end big spenders are notoriously fickle while there's a lot of competition for their attention and money. Are foreign tourists better to attract (bringing in outside currency) or is a domestic tourism market better - or what balance of the two? Is it better to have a smaller but more stable tourism base than big spikes that swing up and down with economic cycles? Not simple questions to answer, and very difficult to manage outcomes in one direction or another in any case. Namibia has done an exceptional job of sorting these questions out for themselves in recent years, but they're one of the few (and they've pissed off a lot of people in the process).
As to the question of perceptions of crime, conflict, etc. in Africa keeping people away, that's simply a canard unsupported by hard data. The BBC did a nice piece on the correlation between developed tourism infrastructure and tourism growth in late 2007. The takeaway: better infrastructure attracts more tourists and greater spending, even in the face of risk of personal harm and negative perceptions. (link to the BBC article from http://bit.ly/c5GZOn) There are other, more academic studies that point to similar factors that drive tourism growth.
As to Atravelynn's self-reflection about whether the desire to keep a place 'wild' makes one a snob, I wouldn't use that word but it does point to an important underlying issue and that is a view of Africa as a passive landscape on which outsiders like to (and permit themselves to) act out their fantasies. The classic safari is just such a packaged product, as is the roughing it overland journey (by motorbike, foot, train, whatever - "Cape to Cairo" or the like being the signature version). Now, most holidays involve some form of fantasy (which is part of why we 'get away' after all!), but in this instance Africa itself is the landscape, not a more narrowly defined and specialised space like Disneyland or a beach resort, or a Tuscan villa. This view is so deeply entrenched in outside/Western understandings of Africa that it scarcely registers as a 'view', but it's pervasive - exploitative in its negative expression and paternalistic/patronising in its more well-intentioned expressions. I agree with MDK that a more nuanced understanding of the 54 nations in Africa would be a good start. And, trust me, African nations do spend money to promote their own country as a destination, but compared to the budgets of the big destinations in the world (and the entrenched tourism industry role players who profit from the comfortable status quo), it's like spitting in the ocean.
African governments (and companies) invest in tourism (and related infrastructure) because it's good for their economies, which (hopefully) helps local residents. Growing economies requires development, which, like gentrification in urban neighbourhoods, means change, displacement and social dislocation along with raised standards of living, improved quality of life and stronger civic institutions. Our desire to keep particular places static in time is at the expense of the development of the local people in those places. I'm not arguing that development per se is always and everywhere good, but that we need to be honest about the human costs of "conservation" as well. Somehow, we like to have new libraries, functioning sewerage systems, emergency response radio networks, filled-in potholes, packaged food at the grocery, and other improvements/conveniences in our own lives at home, but get annoyed when we see them arriving in the lives of Africans.
Apr 2nd, 2010, 07:13 AM
#6
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are great comments. Depending on how you measure global tourism, the US, for example has a lot of homegrown tourists. It's simple and affordable for many to travel from Illinois to Florida and not so easy to get to Africa. The flight alone to/from Africa for two people is more money than most people I know spend on their whole vacation.
In Europe, the French can head to Italy fairly easy and vice-versa. So the more affluent countries may be spending close to home and swapping tourism dollars.
I'd like to know the country by country stats mentioned by MyDogKyle, and I've tried to find them--even before this post. I was looking for trends over time as well as location by location.
Funny, I used France and Italy as examples, just like MDK. Continuing with the nomenclature, I too, often say "Africa" as opposed to specific countries. When I've mentioned Botswana as a destination, some people asked me to pronounce it again and stumbled over the syllables. They had never heard the word. So Africa is easier.
Kurt A has made some insightful comments to get people thinking. I would like to see better infrastructure for the people living on the continent of Africa, but less infrastructure in the wild areas and I don't want demanding foreign tourists to ruin what is there because they'll only visit if accommodations are up to their lofty standards. I feel that way about development in the US and fight it close to home as developers want to plough down our local parks.
I hope the will to maintain wilderness regions in Africa and around the world persists. As we become more enamored with virtual reality, instant gratification, and over the top creature comforts, I hope we continue to appreciate what is really out there and not lose it through apathy or to demands that in order to experience it firsthand, it must be just like home.
In Europe, the French can head to Italy fairly easy and vice-versa. So the more affluent countries may be spending close to home and swapping tourism dollars.
I'd like to know the country by country stats mentioned by MyDogKyle, and I've tried to find them--even before this post. I was looking for trends over time as well as location by location.
Funny, I used France and Italy as examples, just like MDK. Continuing with the nomenclature, I too, often say "Africa" as opposed to specific countries. When I've mentioned Botswana as a destination, some people asked me to pronounce it again and stumbled over the syllables. They had never heard the word. So Africa is easier.
Kurt A has made some insightful comments to get people thinking. I would like to see better infrastructure for the people living on the continent of Africa, but less infrastructure in the wild areas and I don't want demanding foreign tourists to ruin what is there because they'll only visit if accommodations are up to their lofty standards. I feel that way about development in the US and fight it close to home as developers want to plough down our local parks.
I hope the will to maintain wilderness regions in Africa and around the world persists. As we become more enamored with virtual reality, instant gratification, and over the top creature comforts, I hope we continue to appreciate what is really out there and not lose it through apathy or to demands that in order to experience it firsthand, it must be just like home.
Apr 2nd, 2010, 08:48 AM
#7
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your insightful post, Kurt. I discovered your blog a while back and have really enjoyed reading it, and I also appreciate the links you've provided to other stories. You've done a great job tying together tourism and social issues. Definitely worth digging into for those of us who love Africa (or, in my case, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and South Africa! 
)
I agree that this is a far more complicated topic than just what the average foreign tourist can grasp. I've had conversations with friends in Uganda and South Africa about domestic tourism in those countries (and about tourists from one African country visiting another), and it was very enlightening to hear their points of view. (My comments on this post were about the conversations I've had with American and European friends with regard to travel in Africa, though.)
) I agree that this is a far more complicated topic than just what the average foreign tourist can grasp. I've had conversations with friends in Uganda and South Africa about domestic tourism in those countries (and about tourists from one African country visiting another), and it was very enlightening to hear their points of view. (My comments on this post were about the conversations I've had with American and European friends with regard to travel in Africa, though.)
Trending Topics
Apr 2nd, 2010, 09:21 AM
#8
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Having MORE tourists isn't necessarily good, and high-end big spenders are notoriously fickle while there's a lot of competition for their attention and money."
And the high end lodges and camps are notoriously greedy when the tourists discover their places, raising rates to outrageous levels. Illustrated by the pricing in Botswana and Zambia.
And the high end lodges and camps are notoriously greedy when the tourists discover their places, raising rates to outrageous levels. Illustrated by the pricing in Botswana and Zambia.
Apr 2nd, 2010, 05:30 PM
#9
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
atravelynn-
I totally agree - it's far away, and although a good value in terms of miles flown, it's expensive to get there from most travellers. I also think that residents just don't have the resources to travel the way we in industrialized nations do so the numbers reflect that.
Any idea of percentages to S America and Asia? I would guess it's comparable.
Unfortunately when I tell people how much I love southern Africa, they think I'm nuts. So many people have the wrong idea about the continent. It's very sad. My first Africa adventure was courtesy of my Mom. She invited all 15 of her immediate family. Four of us went - the rest were not at all interested. I'm embarrassed by that. (and it was free! I'd never turn down a free vaca!)
I totally agree - it's far away, and although a good value in terms of miles flown, it's expensive to get there from most travellers. I also think that residents just don't have the resources to travel the way we in industrialized nations do so the numbers reflect that.
Any idea of percentages to S America and Asia? I would guess it's comparable.
Unfortunately when I tell people how much I love southern Africa, they think I'm nuts. So many people have the wrong idea about the continent. It's very sad. My first Africa adventure was courtesy of my Mom. She invited all 15 of her immediate family. Four of us went - the rest were not at all interested. I'm embarrassed by that. (and it was free! I'd never turn down a free vaca!)
Apr 2nd, 2010, 05:56 PM
#10
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Having MORE tourists isn't necessarily good, and high-end big spenders are notoriously fickle while there's a lot of competition for their attention and money."
And the high end lodges and camps are notoriously greedy when the tourists discover their places, raising rates to outrageous levels. Illustrated by the pricing in Botswana and Zambia.
With CCAfrica looking to try to book out the HATAB sites way in advance - greed and manipulation is the only term that comes to mind!!!
(oops sorry, And Beyond)
And the high end lodges and camps are notoriously greedy when the tourists discover their places, raising rates to outrageous levels. Illustrated by the pricing in Botswana and Zambia.
With CCAfrica looking to try to book out the HATAB sites way in advance - greed and manipulation is the only term that comes to mind!!!
(oops sorry, And Beyond)
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
julies
Africa & the Middle East
9
Jul 13th, 2017 10:11 AM
Aarti
Africa & the Middle East
18
May 27th, 2002 06:14 PM
