The African economy has been promoted through luxury tourism as a strategic alternative to attract and stimulate high-income visitors. However, despite the revenue-generating potential, research shows that this model does not always benefit local communities and can end up exacerbating existing inequalities. There is controversy surrounding this topic, as to how to balance economic development, environmental preservation, and social justice on the continent.
Luxury tourism grows, but local benefits are limited
Efforts by some African nations to attract luxury tourism have yielded limited benefits for local communities, with new research by the University of Manchester saying on Tuesday that it often causes more harm than good.
Rising business and leisure travel on the continent has made it increasingly attractive for multinational companies. Airlines have also increased their African capacity, and in some nations that momentum is translating into economic impact.
Many African governments are targeting luxury tourism development, describing it as “high-value, low-impact,” but the research – published in African Studies Review – has found that is not always the case. All-inclusive resorts are often cut off from local life, hire few local workers, and keep tourists from spending in nearby communities by providing everything on-site, it said.
Profits abroad and tensions
The research added the most profitable eco-lodges were foreign-owned, with much of the tourist spending flowing to overseas travel agencies, food imports or profits repatriated abroad. It also argued luxury tourism deepens inequality, with profits concentrated among foreign operators or a small local elite while wages for most tourism jobs remain low.
The issue is fuelling tensions on the ground. Just last week, a local activist filed a lawsuit seeking to block the opening of a new Ritz-CarltonMAR.Oluxury safari lodge, which boasts plunge pools and personalised butler service, in Kenya’s Maasai Mara reserve.
The concentration of profits by foreign groups or local elites ultimately exacerbates this perception of exclusion among local communities in tourist areas. Many residents were promised jobs and social improvements, but these do not reflect the reality, with low wages, little cultural integration, and a gradual loss of access to territories historically linked to their people.
Local communities resist the advance of resorts
The dispute is the latest flashpoint in East Africa’s grasslands between luxury tourism and Maasai herders who say the sector’s development is harming their habitats and ways of life. In Kenya, locals have complained about what they say are land grabs by wealthy investors. In Tanzania, protests against the eviction of tens of thousands of Maasai to make way for hunting lodges have led to deadly clashes with police.
The fact that there is resistance from local communities reveals the cultural dimension of the conflict. The Maasai people are one of these, and they don’t see land as an economic resource, but rather as an essential part of their identity and tradition. As these territories have become luxury destinations, attracting international tourists, the idea that the displacement of these peoples jeopardizes the continuity of ancestral practices is reinforced.
The search for more inclusive tourism
It’s important to prioritize local partnerships, worker training, and community tourism projects to reverse the current situation. These changes can ensure that more of the resources remain in the regions visited. Luxury tourism doesn’t need to end, but rather be reshaped to offer real and lasting benefits to local communities.
The debate over luxury tourism in Africa highlights the dilemma between economic growth and social justice in the region. The sector may represent an opportunity to attract international investment and visitors to the continent, but at the same time, its impact exacerbates inequalities, threatening long-term sustainability. Analysts point out that a balance must be struck so that local cultures can be preserved, the environment protected, and the benefits distributed more broadly to the local population.
GCN.com/Reuters