3 Economic Development – Tourism
Objective 3.4 – Evaluate the impacts of tourism and the strategies for sustainable development
1. Drivers of the rapid growth of tourism
Tourism expands when push forces (e.g., lack of local jobs, desire for change) combine with pull attractions (e.g., new experiences, perceived safety). The main drivers listed in the Cambridge syllabus are:
| Driver | How it contributes to growth (push‑pull link) |
|---|
| Improved transport | Low‑cost airlines, high‑speed rail, cruise ships and upgraded road networks lower travel time and cost – a strong pull for distant destinations. |
| Higher disposable income | Economic development creates a larger middle class (push: limited leisure options at home; pull: ability to afford holidays). |
| Advances in ICT | Internet booking, travel apps and social media make planning easier and inspire new destinations – pull of convenience and novelty. |
| Globalisation & liberal‑trade policies | Visa‑waiver agreements and open‑border policies reduce administrative barriers – pull of ease of movement. |
| Marketing & destination branding | National tourism boards, travel fairs and “Instagram‑able” campaigns raise a destination’s profile – pull of perceived attractiveness. |
| Environmental & cultural awareness | Growing interest in ecotourism, heritage tourism and adventure travel creates niche markets – pull of authentic, responsible experiences. |
2. The Butler Tourism‑Development Cycle
The model (Butler, 1979) shows the typical evolution of a destination as visitor numbers rise. It is frequently presented as a diagram in the exam, so an ASCII version is provided for quick recall.
Exploratory → Involvement → Development → Consolidation → Stagnation → Decline / Rejuvenation
- Exploratory: Very few tourists; minimal facilities.
- Involvement: Residents start offering services (homestays, guiding).
- Development: Large‑scale investment in hotels, transport, attractions; rapid visitor increase.
- Consolidation: Growth slows; market matures; competition intensifies.
- Stagnation: Destination reaches or exceeds its carrying capacity; quality may fall.
- Decline / Rejuvenation: Over‑use leads to loss of attractiveness, but proactive management can revive the site.
Strengths
- Provides a clear chronological framework for planning (AO1).
- Highlights the importance of carrying capacity – a key exam keyword.
- Useful for comparing destinations at different stages (e.g., Bali vs. Machu Picchu).
Limitations
- Assumes a linear, one‑directional path; many sites experience cycles or overlap stages.
- Ignores external shocks such as pandemics, political unrest, or natural disasters – topics often examined in Paper 2.
- Focuses mainly on visitor numbers; quality of experience and community wellbeing receive less attention.
3. Impacts of tourism – a four‑category overview
| Impact category | Positive effects (with quantitative examples) | Negative effects |
|---|
| Economic |
- Job creation – e.g., tourism accounts for ~10 % of total employment in Spain.
- Foreign‑exchange earnings – the Caribbean generates >US$30 bn annually.
- Infrastructure upgrades – new airports, roads and broadband often funded by tourism tax revenues.
- Stimulus for local entrepreneurship – souvenir‑making, guided tours, food‑service start‑ups.
|
- Seasonal/low‑wage jobs – many positions are only available during peak months.
- Leakage – up to 40 % of tourism revenue in many island economies leaves the country.
- Inflation – housing and food prices rise faster than average wages in popular destinations.
- Over‑dependence – economies become vulnerable to shocks such as COVID‑19.
|
| Social |
- Improved public services funded by tourism tax (e.g., new hospitals in Thailand).
- Cultural exchange – visitors learn about local customs; locals gain global awareness.
- Community pride – UNESCO World Heritage status often boosts local identity.
|
- Over‑crowding of public facilities (toilets, transport hubs).
- Loss of traditional lifestyles; “cultural commodification”.
- Rise in crime or anti‑social behaviour in heavily visited areas.
- Seasonal labour insecurity and migrant worker issues.
|
| Cultural |
- Funding for conservation of historic buildings, museums and festivals (e.g., restoration of Angkor Wat).
- Revitalisation of crafts and performing arts for tourist markets – creates new income streams.
|
- Commercialisation – performances staged solely for tourists, losing authenticity.
- Physical damage to fragile heritage sites from foot‑traffic.
- Erosion of genuine cultural practices as locals adapt to visitor expectations.
|
| Environmental |
- Economic incentive to protect natural attractions – many parks charge entry fees that fund conservation.
- Growth of eco‑certified accommodation and low‑impact tours (e.g., ISO 14001, Green Globe).
|
- Air, water and noise pollution – especially from air travel and cruise ships.
- Habitat degradation, soil erosion and loss of biodiversity (e.g., coral bleaching in the Maldives).
- Over‑development of coastal, mountain and island areas.
- Increased solid‑waste generation and inadequate disposal facilities.
|
Scale‑specific benefits & problems
- Local – jobs and improved services vs. pressure on housing, water supply and community cohesion.
- Regional – major infrastructure projects and higher tax revenue vs. larger carbon footprint and ecosystem disturbance.
- Global – foreign‑exchange earnings and cross‑cultural understanding vs. global greenhouse‑gas emissions from international travel and spread of invasive species.
4. Evaluation of tourism impacts (AO1‑AO3)
- Economic dependence – Diversifies income (AO1) but creates vulnerability to external shocks such as pandemics, political unrest or natural disasters (AO3). Example: Caribbean economies fell >70 % in 2020.
- Distribution of benefits – Multinational operators often capture the bulk of profit (AO2). Remote or marginalised communities may see few gains, leading to inequitable development.
- Carrying capacity – Exceeding environmental or social limits degrades the assets that attract visitors (AO3). Once a destination’s carrying capacity is breached, restoration costs rise sharply.
- Seasonality – Peaks create under‑utilised infrastructure in off‑peak months and cyclical unemployment; smoothing demand can improve economic stability.
- Leakage – Money spent on imported goods, foreign‑owned hotels and overseas travel agencies reduces net earnings (AO2). Strategies to reduce leakage are a key part of sustainable‑tourism planning.
5. Sustainable‑tourism strategies (with specific techniques)
- Policy & planning
- National tourism strategies with measurable sustainability targets (e.g., “10 % of visitors in low‑impact zones by 2025”).
- Zoning & visitor‑capacity limits for fragile sites (e.g., daily caps, timed‑entry tickets).
- Incentives for green certification – ISO 14001, Green Globe, or EarthCheck accreditation.
- Community involvement
- Community‑based tourism enterprises – profits stay locally (e.g., cooperatives of homestay owners).
- Skills‑training programmes for residents (guiding, hospitality, language).
- Participatory decision‑making – local councils consulted before new developments.
- Environmental management
- Eco‑tax or visitor levy earmarked for conservation, waste‑water treatment, and reforestation.
- Renewable‑energy installations in hotels and attractions (solar panels, biogas).
- Zero‑plastic policies and comprehensive recycling programmes (“Leave No Trace” campaigns).
- Economic measures
- Diversify the tourism product – eco‑tourism, cultural tourism, adventure tourism – to spread visitor pressure.
- Promote off‑season events (festivals, conferences) to smooth demand and reduce seasonality.
- Support local supply chains – encourage use of locally produced food, crafts and services (e.g., “Buy Local” label).
- Education & awareness
- Interpretive centres and signage that explain responsible behaviour (e.g., staying on trails).
- School curricula in tourist regions that teach sustainable‑tourism principles.
- Media campaigns targeting both visitors and operators (e.g., “Travel Light, Travel Right”).
6. Case study – Machu Picchu, Peru (2019‑2023)
Machu Picchu, a UNESCO World Heritage site, has faced rapid visitor growth. The management response aims to protect the archaeological complex while maximising socio‑economic benefits.
| Aspect |
Key impacts (2019‑2023) |
Benefits / Problems (scale) |
Management actions |
| Visitor numbers |
1.2 million (2019) → 2.0 million (2023) – 66 % increase |
- Local – higher income for guides, transport operators.
- Regional – increased tax revenue for Cusco.
- Global – greater awareness of Inca heritage.
- Negative – overcrowding at the Sun Gate, water‑supply strain, erosion of agricultural terraces.
|
- Daily cap of 2,500 visitors (implemented 2021).
- Timed‑entry tickets and online booking to spread arrivals.
- New waste‑water treatment plant (capacity 500 m³ day⁻¹).
- 10 % tourism levy financing a community‑benefit fund (schools, health clinics).
|
| Economic leakage |
≈ 30 % of tourism revenue captured by foreign‑owned tour operators. |
- Regional – substantial foreign‑exchange earnings.
- Problem – limited multiplier effect for local businesses.
|
- Preferential licensing for locally owned agencies.
- “Machu Picchu Guides of Tomorrow” – 1,200 locals certified (2022‑23).
|
| Environmental pressure |
Solid waste ↑ to ~12 tons month⁻¹; water consumption ≈1.8 million L day⁻¹. |
- Local – litter, water shortages for nearby villages.
- Global – contribution to carbon footprint of air travel.
|
- Zero‑plastic policy for all concessionaires (2022).
- Solar‑powered lighting on the Inca Trail.
- Reforestation of 5 ha of degraded cloud‑forest (2023).
|
| Cultural impacts |
Increased visitor pressure on sacred sites (e.g., Intihuatana stone) and a rise in staged performances for tourists. |
- Positive – funding for restoration of stone structures.
- Negative – risk of cultural commodification and loss of authenticity.
|
- Interpretive programmes that educate visitors on Inca cosmology.
- Guidelines limiting commercial performances within the archaeological zone.
|
Evaluation of the Machu Picchu response
- Visitor caps and timed tickets have reduced peak‑day crowding, improving experience and protecting the stonework (AO3).
- The tourism levy provides tangible community benefits, partially offsetting leakage (AO2).
- Environmental measures (waste‑water plant, zero‑plastic policy) address the most pressing local impacts, though continuous monitoring is required.
- Challenges remain: enforcing caps during peak season and ensuring that cultural‑heritage guidelines are respected by all operators.
7. Data snapshot – Global tourist arrivals (2015‑2022)
| Year | International arrivals (million) | Estimated CO₂ emissions from air travel (Mt CO₂) |
|---|
| 2015 | 1 210 | 1 030 |
| 2016 | 1 240 | 1 050 |
| 2017 | 1 280 | 1 080 |
| 2018 | 1 320 | 1 110 |
| 2019 | 1 460 | 1 230 |
| 2020 | 381 (↓ 74 %) | 320 (↓ 74 %) |
| 2021 | 520 (↑ 36 % on 2020) | 440 (↑ 38 % on 2020) |
| 2022 | 1 080 (↑ 119 % on 2021) | 910 (↑ 107 % on 2021) |
Interpretation (exam‑style): The line graph would show a steady rise to 2019, a sharp dip in 2020 (COVID‑19), and a rapid rebound in 2022. The pattern illustrates tourism’s vulnerability to external shocks and the risk that a swift recovery can intensify environmental pressures if sustainability measures are not already in place.
8. Carrying‑capacity concepts
- Physical capacity – maximum number of visitors the environment can tolerate without degradation (e.g., trail erosion limits).
- Social capacity – level of visitor numbers that local residents find acceptable (quality of life, crowding).
- Economic capacity – point at which additional tourists no longer generate net economic benefit because of rising costs (inflation, infrastructure strain).
- Management implication – Sustainable tourism requires monitoring all three capacities and applying tools such as caps, zoning, pricing mechanisms and visitor‑education programmes.
9. Summary – what examiners look for
- Identify and explain the main drivers of tourism growth, including push‑pull dynamics.
- Describe the Butler cycle and evaluate its usefulness (strengths & limitations).
- Analyse benefits and problems across economic, social, cultural and environmental dimensions, using quantitative examples where possible.
- Evaluate impacts using the three Assessment Objectives:
- AO1 – recall facts and terminology (e.g., carrying capacity, leakage).
- AO2 – apply knowledge to new situations (e.g., compare two destinations).
- AO3 – weigh advantages against disadvantages and make balanced judgments.
- Present a range of sustainable‑tourism strategies**, naming specific techniques (eco‑tax, green certification, community‑based enterprises, timed‑entry tickets, etc.).
- Use a detailed case study (Machu Picchu) that covers all four impact categories and shows concrete management actions.
- Interpret data tables/graphs on global arrivals and link trends to vulnerability and sustainability.
- Show understanding of carrying capacity and how it underpins policy decisions.
By linking drivers, impacts, evaluation and management, candidates demonstrate a balanced, exam‑ready understanding of how tourism can be developed responsibly for people and the planet.