Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives

Challenges and potential for linkingtourism and agriculture to achievepro-poor tourism objectives

Rebecca Torresa,� and Janet Henshall Momsenb

aDepartment of Geography, East Carolina University, USAbDepartment of Human and Community Development, University of CaliforniaDavis, USA

Abstract: With tourism rapidly increasing in developing nations there is an emerging focus onintegrating pro-poor tourism into both the international tourism and aid agendas. Following abrief review of the pro-poor tourism literature, this article argues for the explicit creation oftourism and agriculture linkages to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives. To understand boththe potential and the problems associated with linking the two sectors, we present an in-depthcase study of tourism and agriculture in Cancun, Mexico. The case study draws on theperspectives of Cancun hotel chefs, who control hotel food purchasing, and Quintana Roofarmers, who have attempted to supply the tourism industry, to provide a unique thoroughexamination of the challenges and potential for such linkages in a mass tourism resort.

Key words: agriculture, Cancun, Mexico, Quintana Roo, pro-poor, tourism.

I Introduction

Tourism has been an integral component of economic development strategies indeveloping nations since the 1960s. The industry’s potential to generate foreignexchange earnings, attract international investment, increase tax revenues and create

WC Arnold 2004 10.1191/1464993404ps092oa

�Author for correspondence at: Department of Geography, East Carolina University, Greenville NC27858, USA. Tel: þ1 252 328 1039; fax: þ1 775 255 7923; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Progress in Development Studies 4,4 (2004) pp. 294–318

new jobs has served as an incentive for developing countries to promote tourism asan engine for macro-economic growth. With the rise of neoliberalism, which heavilyemphasizes outward-oriented economic development strategies, countries of theSouth are increasingly turning to tourism, the world’s largest industry (Mowforthand Munt, 1998; Goodwin, 2000), to serve as an engine for economic development(Brohman, 1996; Ghimire, 1997; Cattarinich, 2001). While developing countries cur-rently receive only about 30.5% of all international arrivals this proportion continuesto grow as cosmopolitan ‘First World’ travellers seek out more pristine and ‘exotic’locales. Tourism now contributes over 2% of GDP or 5% of exports to the economiesof 11 of the 12 nations which are home to 80% of the world’s poor (World TourismOrganization (WTO) 1998 in Ashley et al., 2000).

Until recently tourism development has focused primarily on generating macro-economic growth and private-sector profit. The issue of poverty alleviation hasbeen largely absent from the tourism development agenda (Ashley et al., 2000). Simi-larly, international development agencies have been slow to include tourism amongtheir poverty reduction strategies. This can be attributed in part to the fact that con-ventional tourism development is often associated with negative social and environ-mental impacts; control by local elites or transnational corporations; high levels ofleakages and expatriation of profits; and wealthy tourists who have little interestin visiting poor regions. Critics also argue that tourism development in lesser devel-oped countries (LDCs) can create or perpetuate unequal relations of dependency,as well as foster uneven and inequitable socio-economic and spatial development(Britton, 1982, 1991; Brohman, 1996; Milne, 1997; Wall, 1997; Pi-Sunyer and Thomas,1997; Goodwin, 1998; Weaver, 1998, Mowforth and Munt, 1998; Clancy, 1999;Cattarinich, 2001). Tourism in the Third World has been conceptualized by somescholars as an exploitative form of ‘neocolonialism’ (Britton, 1981; Brohman, 1996)or ‘leisure imperialism’ (Crick, 1989). The reality is, however, that tourism alreadytouches the lives of many of the world’s poor. With the inexorable growth of trans-nationalism and globalization, seemingly nothing can deter the continuing rapidspread of tourism across the globe – penetrating into the most deprived pocketsof the world’s poorest nations. This suggests, as Roe and Urquhart Khanya(2001: 2) have stated, ‘the challenge is to enhance the many positive impacts it canhave and reduce the costs it can place on the poor’.

New ‘pro-poor’ tourism development strategies that explicitly seek to maximizetourism benefits to the poor while simultaneously reducing their negative impacts,are now being articulated in both academic and influential aid agency circles.These suggested new pro-poor approaches cover the entire spectrum from private-sector initiatives and community endeavours to private–public joint ventures andpublic-sector infrastructure enhancement. At some level, almost every public-sectordepartment and every conceivable private and community-level institutional formhave been included in equations that prescribe top-down and bottom-upapproaches, forward and backward linkages – and almost every permutation inbetween. Most tourism researchers and planners do, however, recognize that linkingtourism demand for food to local agricultural production represents an approach tostimulating local agricultural production, channelling tourism industry benefits tofarmers and reducing economic leakages, that translates well to almost any globalcircumstance. It is ironic, therefore, that linking tourism and agriculture does not fea-ture prominently in prescriptions now being articulated – despite the acknowledged

R. Torres and J.H. Momsen 295

fact that agriculture is the principal livelihood of most local people in regions beingtargeted for pro-poor development. There is clearly an urgent need to understandwhy such linkages rarely materialize and to identify the conditions necessary forthem to do so. This paper seeks to contribute to such an understanding while alsogiving greater prominence to ‘linking tourism and agriculture’ in the larger pro-poor tourism agenda. After a brief introduction to both the pro-poor tourism andtourism and agriculture literature, we argue for the explicit inclusion of tourismand agriculture linkages in the pro-poor tourism agenda. An in-depth case studyof Cancun, Mexico, serves to convey contextual understanding of the issuesinvolved.

The case study draws on field work conducted in Cancun, Mexico during 1997–98. Data are presented from a survey of 60 Cancun hotel chefs looking at demand andsupply and sources of foodstuffs. Stratified by hotel class, the sample represents 48%of all 125 Cancun hotels and 66% of Cancun hotel rooms at that time. These data con-firm that tourism and agriculture linkages are weak in Cancun, and chefs’ opinionson this situation are presented. Interestingly there was little difference between theopinions of chefs in the five-star hotels and those in the smaller, lower-end hotels.The case study also uses semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted on ejidos(Mexican communal land holdings) throughout the state of Quintana Roo to presentthe experiences of selected farmers producing for the tourism industry.1 The farmers’stories of their attempts to sell to tourism markets reveal both the potential for link-ing the two sectors and the complex challenges of doing so. Both the farmers’ andchefs’ perspectives provide important insights and lessons for tourism and agricul-ture – particularly in a mass tourism context.

II Pro-poor tourism

The international development community has reached a concensus to worktowards reducing by half (since 1990) the proportion of people living in extreme pov-erty (,US $1 per day) by the year 2015 (Goodwin, 2000; Cattarinich, 2001; Roe andUrquhart Khanya, 2001; World Bank 2002). This ‘Millennium Development Goal’(World Bank, 2002) has contributed to a new focus on ‘pro-poor’ growth to combatglobal poverty and hunger. This commitment to pro-poor development, combinedwith a concurrent emphasis on developing sustainable livelihood approaches(Chambers and Conway, 1992; Singh and Wanmali, 1998; Carney, 1999; Farrington,2001), has given birth to a new Pro-Poor Tourism movement (Department for Inter-national Development (DFID) 1999a, b; Momsen, 1999, 2003; Ashley et al., 2000,2001b; Roe and Urquhart Khanya, 2001). Pro-poor tourism is defined as ‘. . . tourismthat generates net benefits to the poor. Economic benefits are only one (though a veryimportant) component of this, as social, environmental and cultural costs and ben-efits also need to be taken into account’ (DFID, 1999a: 6). The emergence of pro-poor tourism has been facilitated by the rapid diversification of tourism productsin recent years (Poon, 1989; Urry, 1990, 1995; Shaw and Williams, 1994; LiebmanParrinello, 1996; Vanhove, 1997; Mowforth and Munt, 1998; Williams and Shaw,1998), particularly growth of alternative, more flexible forms of post-Fordist tourism(Torres, 2002a) such as ‘sustainable tourism’, ‘responsible tourism’ and ‘ecotourism’,although these have tended to emphasize environmental sustainability over social

296 Linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives

and livelihood issues (DFID, 1999b; Ashley et al., 2000; Overseas Development Insti-tute (ODI), 2001). While a pro-poor approach can involve these forms of tourism,pro-poor tourism seeks to be much broader in scope and not be limited to alternativeor niche tourism (Ashley et al., 2001a). It also extends beyond ‘community tourism’,by striving to ‘unlock opportunities for the poor at all levels and scales of operation’(Ashley et al., 2001b: 3).

Proponents of pro-poor tourism argue that tourism possesses certain character-istics that make it potentially more conducive to poverty elimination than othereconomic sectors (DFID, 1999a, b; Ashley et al., 2000, 2001b; Roe and UrquhartKhanya, 2001). Tourism has the advantage of bringing the consumers to the pro-duct, thus increasing opportunities for linkages that give the poor access to mar-kets in which to sell their goods and services. Tourism is labour intensive andtherefore has the potential to generate significant employment. It also appearsto offer more job and income earning opportunities to women than do other sec-tors (Hemmati, 1999). Given its diverse nature, tourism provides a wide scope foreconomic diversification, as well as increased opportunities for participation bythe poor who often operate informally. Tourism – particularly nature- or cultu-rally oriented tourism – often depends on the assets or natural capital of thepoor (Roe and Urquhart Khanya, 2001). This may potentially provide local peoplewith an opportunity to leverage their assets to obtain equity in joint venture part-nerships, as well as to extract value and decision-making power through theirownership of unique tourism resources. Aside from employment and businessopportunities, the poor can also benefit from tourism development throughimproved infrastructure, security, communications, community development andlocal pride (Roe et al., 2002). Goodwin (2000) suggests that tourism can also benefitthe poor by generating government revenues that may subsequently be investedin health and education. This can, in turn, stimulate development of social andhuman capital and improve sustainable environmental management practices intargeted regions.

While incentives for international development agencies, national governmentsand local communities to promote pro-poor tourism are evident, it is less clearwhy private-sector tourism firms might be motivated to adopt a pro-poor approach.The recent terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC have triggered an inter-national debate suggesting explicit links between poverty and terrorism. At the UNsummit on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico (BBC, 2002) the WorldTrade Organization head, Michael Moore declared, ‘Poverty in all its forms is thegreatest single threat to peace, security, democracy, human rights and the environ-ment’. Roe et al. (2002) suggest that the tourism industry’s vulnerability to localand international instability provides a compelling incentive to adopt pro-poorbusiness practices. Aside from the fickle and fluid nature of international tourism,the tourist product depends on a positive local environment with friendly residentsand tourism workers. Roe et al. (2002: 2) propose that tourism companies should cul-tivate good relationships with local community destinations out of ‘enlightened self-interest’. With social consciousness growing among tourists, all things being equal,they prefer to give their business to companies that exhibit ‘corporate social respon-sibility commitments’ (Roe et al., 2002: 2). Perhaps the most compelling motivationfor tourism firms to incorporate pro-poor objectives is that poor countries representhigh growth markets that translate into an excellent business opportunity. Tourism in


developing nations has grown by 9.5% annually, in contrast to the world average of4.6% (WTO, 1999).

Despite the numerous potential positive impacts of pro-poor tourism develop-ment, there are serious challenges to overcome. The poor need to be protectedfrom vulnerability to the volatility of the tourism industry (Ashley et al., 2001b). Fur-thermore, numerous pro-poor tourism case studies reveal that it is difficult to reachthe poorest segments of societies. Even within pro-poor tourism initiatives, the poor-est people received the least economic gains. The control of the tourism industry byinternational corporations, outsiders and local elites limits access to tourism marketsby the poor (Ashley et al., 2001b). Participation by the poor is also hindered byinadequate education and training; high tourism industry quality requirements;and a lack of economic and social capital. Analysts emphasize, nevertheless, thateven marginal gains in income can be very significant for the poorest households(Goodwin, 2000; Shah and Gupta, 2000; Cattarinich, 2001; Ashley et al., 2001b).

The emerging pro-poor tourism literature prescribes a wide variety of strategiesrequiring implementation through a mix of communal, commercial, public, private,local, national, international and multilateral channels. According to pro-poor tour-ism advocates, the first step is to place poverty on the tourism agenda as an industry-wide objective (Goodwin 2000; Ashley et al., 2000; Roe and Urquhart Khanya, 2001).Next, they suggest taking action to enhance participation by the poor in tourismenterprises. Approaches suggested include addressing issues of credit, organization,land tenure, market access, bureaucracy, training and capacity building, and of pol-icy at various levels, among others. The development of partnerships and joint ven-tures between local governments, tourism investors, NGOs, consumers and donorsare noted as being critical to the success of any pro-poor tourism initiative (Goodwin,2000; Ashley et al., 2000; Ashley and Jones, 2001). Advocates of pro-poor tourism alsostress the importance of integrating pro-poor approaches into mainstream tourismrather than focusing exclusively on specialty niche markets such as ecotourism, com-munity tourism and ethnic tourism. However, they recognize the difficulty of pro-moting pro-poor tourism in mass tourism sites (Ashley et al., 2000).

Despite the various challenges facing pro-poor tourism, empirical evidencesuggests that adoption of explicit, pro-poor approaches can ‘tilt’ tourism, at the mar-gin, to channel industry benefits to the poor (Roe and Urquhart Khanya, 2001; Ashleyet al., 2001a; Momsen, 2002). There is also recognition that the ‘yield’ of that tilt can bemade more significant through a better understanding of the dynamics of exchangeand interaction between the tourism industry and the poor. Success will require tar-geted research to explore in depth: the interface between mass tourism and the poor;the potential for and obstacles to creating linkages between tourism and locally pro-duced goods and services; and the feasibility of partnerships and joint venturesinvolving the poor.

III Pro-poor tourism and tourism–agriculture linkages

Many developing nations now experiencing the most rapid tourism growth haveagrarian societies. Agriculture remains the livelihood of most of the poorest peoplein LDCs. It is imperative, therefore, that pro-poor tourism approaches payclose attention to tourism and agriculture relationships. Tourism has the potential


to stimulate local agricultural development through backward linkages that allowlocal farmers to supply tourism industry food needs. Alternatively, by competingfor agricultural resources – both land and labour – tourism can cause significantharm to local agriculture and ultimately increase the poverty of rural people. Ata regional level, a single focus on tourism, at the expense of local agriculture, canlead to patterns of dependent, uneven and spatially polarized development thatresult in great disparities in wealth between tourist space and rural agriculturalspace (Torres, 2000). Brohman (1996: 50) warns ‘In the absence of well-developedlinkages between the external sectors and the rest of the economy, a limited andpolarized form of development takes place that cannot act as a stimulus for broadlybased development’.

A review of the emerging pro-poor tourism literature reveals that, while theimportance of creating backward sectoral linkages is widely recognized to be import-ant, the issue of agriculture has not been examined in depth. ‘Source goods and ser-vices locally wherever possible’ (Roe et al., 2002: 4) is included among the ‘actionpoints’ for the pro-poor tourism agenda. The issue of linkages is problematic, asnoted in a DFID (1999b: 3) report, ‘Linkages are frequently discussed, rarely seenand particularly important but difficult to develop’. The report goes on to suggestthat it is imperative to identify the causes underlying lack of linkages. Loosely cate-gorized as either supply, demand or marketing related factors, these are reviewed inTable 1. A DFID (1999a: 61) report reviewing a series of pro-poor tourism projectsnotes, ‘. . . there are few successful examples of action to stimulate linkages – thisprobably indicates that it is difficult, but also that concerted long-term effort hasrarely been made. Research by DBSA [Development Bank of South Africa] andothers found that linkages cannot be assumed to emerge – they must be activelyfacilitated’.

Understanding the relationship between tourism and agriculture is necessary toachieving the pro-poor dual objectives of reducing negative impacts while generat-ing net benefits for the poor. In particular, it is important to understand the impactsof tourism development on local agriculture, because farming, fishing and animalhusbandry are the principal livelihood strategies for the poor in most developingregions. In one review of pro-poor tourism initiatives, all respondents (both corpor-ations and NGOs) reported operating in regions where subsistence agriculture, fish-ing and animal husbandry predominated (Cattarinich, 2001). In a review of Asianpro-poor tourism experiences, Shah and Gupta (2000: 29) observe ‘Agriculturaleconomic linkages are not well explored in the literature, although the impact canbe quite dramatic’. Most analysts of pro-poor tourism initiatives have noted someimpacts of tourism on local agriculture.

Observed negative impacts of pro-poor tourism on local agriculture include:diverting land and water resources away from agriculture to support tourism ortourism-related urbanization (DFID, 1999a; Ashley, 2000; Goodwin, 2000; Shah andGupta, 2000; Ashley et al., 2000); competition for time (labour) between tourismand agriculture (Ashley et al., 1999; Ashley, 2000; Ashley et al., 2000); and shiftstoward less sustainable farming practices to increase production for tourism (Shahand Gupta, 2000). The broader tourism and agriculture literature – not limited topro-poor tourism – also reports significant negative impacts of tourism on agricul-ture. Prominent among these are: competition for land and labour (Bryden, 1973;Pi-Sunyer, 1973; Turner and Ash, 1975; Rodenburg, 1980; Hermans, 1981; Food and


Table 1 Factors constraining tourism and agriculture linkages

Constraining factors References

Supply/production relatedLack of sufficient, consistent and guaranteedquantity of locally produced food

Gooding (1971); Momsen (1972, 1973, 1986,1998); Belisle (1983, 1984a); Pattullo (1996);Andreatta (1998); Saville (2001); Torres (2003)

Inadequate quality of local production Gooding (1971); Momsen (1973); Belisle (1983,1984a, b); USAID and The CaribbeanDevelopment Bank (1984); Miller (1985);Pattullo (1996); Telfer (1996); Andreatta (1998);Torres (2003); Sutherland (n.d.)

High prices of locally produced foods Belisle (1984a, b); OAS/CTRC (1984); Miller(1985); Gomes (1993); Pattullo (1996); Telfer(2000); Torres (2003)

Local farming systems’ small economies of scale Momsen (1972); Andreatta (1998); Torres (2003)Poor growing conditions Miller (1985); Gomes (1993); Torres Maldonado

(1997); Andreatta (1998); Torres (2000)Nature of existing local farming systems (i.e.,plantation instead of food crops)

Belisle (1983); Miller (1985); Gomes (1993);Pattullo (1996); Torres Maldonoda (1997);Momsen (1998); Torres (2002b, 2003)

Lack of capital, investment and credit Torres (2002b, 2003)Technological limitations Gooding (1971); Momsen (1972); Belisle (1983,

1984a); USAID and The CaribbeanDevelopment Bank (1994); Torres (2000)

Farm labour deficit attributable to competitionwith tourism sector

Turner and Ash (1975); FAO/ECE (1982);Tyrakowski 1986; Monk and Alexander (1986);Cater (1987); McElroy and Albuquerque (1990);O’Ferral (1991); Bowen et al. (1991); Pattullo(1996); Momsen (1998); Torres (2003)

Demand-relatedForeign-owned, large and high-end hotelpreference for processed and imported foods

Belisle (1983, 1984a); Momsen (1986, 1998);Bowen et al. (1991); Milne (1992); Shaw andWilliams (1994); Telfer and Wall (2000)

Immature tourism industry preference forimported and internally supplied foods

Lundgren (1971); Momsen (1972, 1973, 1986,1998); Mathieson and Wall (1982); Shaw andWilliams (1994); Telfer and Wall (2000)

Certain types of tourists’ (i.e., mass and foreign)preferences for imported and/or home-country foods

Gooding (1971); Belisle (1983, 1984a,b);USAID and The Caribbean Development Bank(1984); Miller (1985); Weaver (1991); Gomes(1993); Pizam and Sussman (1995); Sharkey andMomsen (1995); Pattullo (1996); Momsen(1998); Moscardo and Pearce (1999); Telfer andWall (2000); Torres (2002b)

Tourist and chef distrust of local food owing tosanitation, hygiene and health concerns

Torres Maldonado (1997); Torres (2003)

Foreign or internationally trained chefpreference for imported foods

Momsen (1972, 1973, 1998); Pattullo (1996);Torres (2002b, 2003)

Marketing/intermediary-relatedFailure to promote local foods Gooding (1971); Doxey et al. (1971); Goffe

(1975); OAS/CTRC (1984); USAID and TheCaribbean Development Bank (1984); Momsen(1986); Gomes (1993); Torres (2002b)

Poor/inadequate transportation, storage,processing and marketing infrastructure

Momsen (1972, 1973, 1986); Belisle (1983,1984a); Pattullo (1996); Torres (2003)

(continued)


Agriculture Organization/Economic Commission for Europe (FAO/ECE), 1982;Belisle, 1983; Tyrakowsi, 1986; Monk and Alexander, 1986; Cater 1987; McElroy andAlbuquerque, 1990; Dieke, 1991; O’Ferral, 1991; Bowen et al., 1991; Pattullo, 1996;Momsen, 1998); increased rural-to-urban migration to tourism poles resulting inabandonment of farming (Torres, 2003; Torres and Momsen, in press); increased con-sumption of imported foods that compete with local production and result in foreignexchange leakages (Gooding, 1971; Doxey et al., 1971; Bowen et al., 1991; Taylor et al.,1991; Dieke, 1993; Pattullo, 1996; Telfer, 1996; Telfer and Wall, 2000); a failure tostimulate local agriculture; and, in some cases, triggering reduction or stagnationof production (Rodenburg, 1980; Valarche, 1984; Tyrakowski, 1986; Monk andAlexander, 1986; McElroy and Albuquerque, 1990).

Reported positive impacts of tourism on agriculture observed in pro-poor tourismresearch include: development of vegetable and fruit enterprises to supply tourism(Saville, 2001); the increased profitability of local agricultural production (Saville,2001); shift to more sustainable farming practices (Shah and Gupta, 2000); diversifi-cation of local farming (Goodwin, 1998; Saville, 2001); investment of tourism earn-ings to improve local agriculture (Ashley et al., 1999); reduced dependency andvulnerability to agricultural crises (Renard, 2001); and reversal of out-migration(Shah and Gupta, 2000). Beyond pro-poor tourism research, the potential for tourismto foster agricultural development has also been noted (Goffe, 1975; Belisle, 1983;Organization of American States/Caribbean Tourism Research and DevelopmentCentre (OAS/CTRC), 1984). In particular, the production for tourism of fresh pro-duce and high value specialty foods unique to a given region is considered tohave potential (Belisle, 1984a; Bowen et al., 1991; Cox et al., 1994; Momsen, 1998).Tourism also holds potential to open export markets for local specialty products astourists acquire exposure to new foods (Bowen et al., 1991; Cox et al., 1994; Momsen,1998; Telfer, 2000).

Despite the apparent potential for synergy between tourism and agriculture, it isnotable that linking the two sectors has seldom played a principal role in pro-poortourism initiatives. This is confirmed by pro-poor tourism case studies which notesignificant unrealized potential for local farmers to supply the tourism industry

Table 1 (Continued)

Constraining factors References

Mistrust and lack of communication/informationexchange between farmers, suppliers and tourismindustry

Momsen (1972, 1986); Belisle (1983); USAIDand The Caribbean Development Bank (1984);Miller (1985); Pattullo (1996); Telfer (2001);Telfer and Wall (2000); Torres (2003);Sutherland (n.d.)

Entrenched monopoly marketing networks thatprevent local farmer access

Green (1987); Telfer (2000); Ashley et al.,(2001b); Torres (2003)

Corrupt local marketing networks that limit localproducer access

Torres Maldonado (1997); Torres (2002b, 2003)

Bureaucratic obstacles and informal nature oflocal farming operations

Torres Maldonado (1997); Torres (2002b, 2003)


with food (Shah and Gupta, 2000; Cattarinich, 2001; Saville, 2001; Poultney andSpenceley, 2001; Ashley et al., 2001b). There are a number of compelling reasonswhy linking tourism and local agriculture holds significant potential for achievingpro-poor tourism objectives – that is reducing tourism’s negative impacts and max-imizing benefits for the poor. As mentioned earlier, the majority of potential pro-poortourism beneficiaries subsist from agriculture. Stimulating agricultural productionfor tourism represents an opportunity to build on the existing skills of the poor with-out requiring a major shift in economic livelihood strategy, lifestyle and tradition.With improved access to credit, markets, training and private-sector joint ventures,farmers can supply fresh produce and regional crops to the tourism industry. Theinvestments required to enable local agriculture to achieve the high quality stan-dards demanded by the tourism industry may also facilitate entry into other high-end urban and nontraditional export markets. Aside from improving farm income,stimulating agriculture for tourism can achieve the pro-poor tourism objective ofenhancing the principal productive asset of the rural poor, their land, and so creatingadditional employment. This will further mitigate on-going detrimental effects onthe cultural and social fabric of agrarian communities and households. Reducingout-migration strengthens rural communities that are rapidly losing their youth life-blood to the cities. By channelling some of the wealth generated by tourism to ruralcommunities through linkages, it is possible to lessen the uneven and spatially polar-ized development that typically occurs in tourist areas. Linking local agriculture totourism permits destinations to retain a greater share of tourism benefits and reducesleakages – particularly with respect to foreign imports. With food expendituresrepresenting approximately one-third of daily tourist expenditures at destination(Belisle, 1983; Gomes, 1993; Telfer and Wall, 1996; Torres, 2003), explicitly linkingthe two sectors clearly provides an important opportunity for farmers to improvetheir lot. The potential is further enhanced by evidence of growing tourist demandfor ethnic cuisine, regional specialty foods, seasonal fresh produce and other locallygrown products (Belisle, 1984a; Bowen et al., 1991; Cox et al., 1994; Momsen, 1998;Torres, 2002b).

Enclavic mass tourism presents perhaps the greatest challenge to pro-poor tour-ism as it is associated with negative economic, social and environmental impacts;and it tends to develop few linkages to the local economy. Yet enclavic mass tourism,often based on master-planned resorts dominated by transnational corporations(TNCs), represents an important model of tourism development being implementedby LDCs seeking to promote outward-oriented economic growth (Brohman, 1996;Ghimire, 1997; Cattarinich, 2001). It is mass tourism that holds the greatest potentialimpact – both positive and negative – on the rural poor. Producing food for largeresorts is one obvious mechanism by which to begin integrating poverty alleviationinto the mass tourism development paradigm.

IV Case study: tourism and agriculture linkages in Quintana Roo

Cattarinich (2001: 77) in a review of pro-poor tourism projects, comments that localsourcing of food to tourism represents ‘the sector in which the greatest number oftourism opportunities for poor people could be generated’. He notes, however,that there is a need for micro-level analysis of the positive and negative impacts of


pro-poor tourism and its interaction with the livelihood strategies of local popu-lations (i.e., agriculture). A report by DFID (1999a: 62) observes ‘It is important toidentify why linkages in any particular location do not currently exist’. The remain-der of this paper seeks to address this need by providing a case study of tourism andagriculture in Cancun, Mexico. Drawing on the perspectives of both tourism indus-try chefs, who control hotel food purchasing, and local farmers, who have attemptedto supply the tourism industry, the case study provides a unique in-depth examin-ation of the potential for creating linkages in a mass tourism resort and the challengesfaced in attempting to do so.

During the 1960s the Mexican government selected the island of Cancun, locatedin the isolated southeastern territory of Quintana Roo (statehood gained in 1974) asthe site for its first Planned Tourism Development (PTD) (Figure 1). State-driven PTDrepresented a key component of the Mexican government’s attempt to stimulateexternally oriented economic growth (Torres Maldonado, 1997; Cothran andCothran, 1998; Clancy 1999, 2001). Prior to the onslaught of tourism development,the sparsely populated region was home to the Maya Indians who lived predomi-nately from subsistence farming as well as forest extraction such as lumber andchicle (Villa Rojas, 1945; Konrad, 1980). Cancun was established in the early 1970sand experienced explosive growth to become Mexico’s leading resort. Cancunnow has 143 hotels with 26 024 rooms and receives over 3 million visitors a year,one-quarter of all Mexico’s tourists (Guzman, 2001). The southern coast of thestate of Quintana Roo, marketed as the ‘Mayan Riviera’, has now also become thefocus of intense tourism development. From a macro-economic perspective, tourismin the state has been a huge success, with Quintana Roo alone generating approxi-mately 30% of all of Mexico’s foreign revenue earnings from tourism (Guzman,2001). Quintana Roo does, however, also exhibit the classic signs of the unevenand inequitable development pattern typically associated with large-scale enclavicmass tourism (Torres, 2000). Wealth, infrastructure and resources are geographicallyconcentrated in pockets surrounding mass tourism sites, while the remainder of thestate, particularly rural areas inhabited by Maya farmers, remains marginalized andimpoverished. The population of the state has increased seven times since 1970 andtoday approximately half lives in Cancun. Rural-to-urban migration of poor farmersfrom throughout the Yucatan Peninsula to the tourist growth poles in search of newincome-earning opportunities has not only undermined regional agricultureand rural communities, but has also contributed to an increase in urban povertyand growth of squalid shanty towns on the periphery of the resorts.

While there is a tendency to generalize the difficult growing conditions of thenorthwestern Yucatan Peninsula to the entire region (thin, rocky soils associatedwith the karst landscape), the reality is that Quintana Roo has significant underuti-lized areas with agricultural potential. Quintana Roo SAGAR (Secretaria de Agricul-tura, Ganadaria y Desarollo, Rival or Department of Agriculture) officials in chargeof the region’s agricultural development have long recognized the potential thattourism offers as a market for local production – particularly for fresh produce.According to Antonio Martınez Banda, president of the Union de Comerciantes de laCentral de Abastos de Cancun (Cancun Wholesale Market Merchant Union), thedemand for food in Cancun, channeled through the Central de Abastos, is growingby 15% annually (Yah Sanchez, 1997). Tourism development has not only createddemand for products by tourists, it has also stimulated rapid growth in local


consumption attributable both to increasing disposable income for individualfamilies and exploding population growth. At Cancun’s inception, as the first TICor Tourist Integrated Centre, one of the stated objectives of developing tourismwas ‘To spur regional development with new agricultural, industrial and handicraftactivities in the zone’ (Enrıquez Savignac, 1972: 108). Agriculture was consistently

Figure 1 Location of study and other important sites, QuintanaRoo, Cancun


put forth by the government as one of the many sectors that would benefit from thetourism multiplier effect through the establishment of the Cancun ‘growth pole’. Inparticular, tourism planners envisioned local ejidos on the outskirts of Cancun assources for chickens, hogs and vegetables (Bosselman, 1978: Green, 1987).

Unfortunately, planners counted on a passive ‘trickle down effect’ to stimulatelocal agriculture rather than an integrated programme of action and investments.The linkages were expected to materialize by virtue of improvements in the region’seconomy. This is not to say, however, that there have not been various disparateefforts at promoting local agriculture to meet the demands of the tourism industry.These have focused on utilizing existing or expanding irrigation infrastructure topromote horticulture (Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo, Secretarıa de FomentoAgropecuario, 1983; Fideicomiso de Riesgo Compartido Gerencia Estatal Quintana Roo,1996); introducing new agricultural technologies, such as hydroponics or ‘rustic’greenhouses, to produce for tourism and export markets (Centro de Investigationesde Quintana Roo (CIQRO), 1981; Administradores Asociados Lerma, 1983); establishingpost-harvest handling, storage and wholesale marketing facilities (Estado de QuintanaRoo Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial, 1994; SAGAR, 1995); and implement-ing a state government wholesaler dedicated to procuring local products and deli-vering them to Cancun hotels and suppliers (Comercializadora de Quintana RooInterview 1997). These efforts have, however, been isolated, inconsistent and discon-tinuous. None have played an integral role in the broad PTD strategy for the region.

Without exception, each of the projects mentioned above either did not materia-lize, died quickly after startup or is predicted to fail. Interviews with chefs and tour-ism industry officials reveal that the industry generally does not believe localproducers are capable of growing reasonable quality products at a competitiveprice on a continuing basis. The few experiences hotels and restaurants have hadwith direct linkages to Quintana Roo producers have been negative. They do nottrust local producers. With their existing lack of capital and the difficult environ-mental conditions they must face, local producers have not given adequate causefor them to think otherwise. During interviews, many farmers explained theycould easily double their production if they only had reasonable access to both capi-tal and markets. Producers also expressed a deep mistrust of intermediaries and jointventures (Torres, 2003). All could cite well-known cases of producers beingexploited, cheated or left bankrupt through their dealings with private entrepre-neurs. They were equally distrustful of the government, which is notorious for itscorruption, inefficiency and long history of failures.

A major problem with Quintana Roo projects promoting ‘agriculture for tourism’is that they tend to address only one element – either production or marketing –rather than taking an integrated approach that tackles the multiple facets of tourismand agriculture linkages. Projects have been operated in isolation rather thanthrough a cooperative association of strategic alliances (Telfer, 2000) between thekey actors: hotel and restaurant chefs, Cancun suppliers, farmers, FONATUR(Fondo Nacional de Fomento al Turismo or National Tourism Promotion Fund), andSAGAR, among others.

The agricultural production that does exist in Quintana Roo is disorganized andthere are few instances of consistent and sustained production increases over time.With a few notable exceptions, production is for subsistence or of small-scale cashcrops for local nontourism markets. As a result, tourism and agriculture linkages


are extremely weak in Quintana Roo – even for products such as fresh produce, forwhich the region possesses a competitive advantage (Torres, 2003). The results fromthe survey of hotel chefs revealed that only 4.5% of the fresh fruits and 3.4% of thevegetables consumed by the hotels were supplied by Quintana Roo growers –despite significant potential for production of both in the state. Similarly, only 1%of the meat and 9% of the poultry procured by hotels were produced in QuintanaRoo. Seafood was the only product category for which there were significant locallinkages, with 35% originating in Quintana Roo – a reflection of the relativelyhealthy state of the local fishing industry. Interestingly, there are significantly betterlinkages with the neighbouring Yucatan state’s agricultural sector, despite arguablyworse growing conditions. Yucatan supplied 20% of the fruits, 23% of the vegetables,20% of the meats, 64% of the poultry and 40% of the seafood consumed by the hotelssurveyed (see Table 2). In part, Yucatan’s success in supplying Cancun’s tourismindustry with food can be attributed to the establishment of a regional agro-industryby an entrepreneurial elite which has also invested in hotels in Cancun. In addition,unlike Quintana Roo, agricultural wages have not been driven up by competitionwith the tourism sector. The largest proportion of food supplied to Cancun is, never-theless, brought over 1000 miles from Mexico City by large wholesalers who domi-nate the market. Approximately 68% of the fruits and vegetables consumed byCancun hotels are trucked in from the Mexico City Central de Abastos, which bringstogether produce from throughout the country. With the notable exception of meats,Cancun does not exhibit a high level of dependency on foreign imports as is typicalin many international mass tourism resorts. With improved transportation and com-munications, as well as peso devaluations that have made imported goods prohibi-tively expensive, Cancun has gone from being a resort that was almost entirelydependent upon foreign imports at its inception to one that acquires most of its pro-ducts domestically (Torres, 2003).

Table 2 Volume (percent) of food products purchased by Cancun hotels accordingto place of origin

Food category QuintanaRoo

Yucatan OtherMexicanstates

Foreignsources

Unknowna

Fruits 4.5 20.1 68.1 0.7 6.6Vegetables 3.4 22.8 68.1 0.4 5.3Meats 1.0 20.0 48.0 25.0 6.0Poultry 9.0 64.0 17.0 5.0 5.0Seafood 35.3 40.0 17.4 2.8 4.5Dairy Products 0.0 8.0 70.0 7.0 15.0Commodity foodsb 0.0 4.7 80.6 6.6 8.1Packaged goodsc 2.0 2.0 84.2 6.0 5.8

Notes:aBecause of the complexity of agricultural distribution systems respondents did not know the exact origin for allproducts.bCommodity foods include rice, wheat, sugar, salt, oil, flour and other bulk products.cPackaged goods include all canned, jarred, bottled or wrapped products (e.g., pickles and ketchup).Source: reprinted from Torres (2003).


Consultation with chefs, who are among the most important hotel food procure-ment decision-makers, provides insight as to why tourism and agriculture linkagesremain weak in the region. Table 3 summarizes results from a survey of 60 Cancunhotel chefs who were asked to select the two most important reasons from a list offactors indicating why particular products are supplied primarily from outside theregion (Yucatan Peninsula). The survey concentrated on fresh products. Lack oflocal production, insufficient local quantity or poor quality proved to be the threemost important reasons why many products are imported from outside the region.This reveals a belief commonly held by many chefs that agriculture is impossiblein the ‘barren rock’ or ‘tropical hell’ hostile environment of Quintana Roo and Yuca-tan State. With respect to Quintana Roo, many chefs are surprised to learn there isany agricultural production at all in the state other than peasant milpa shifting culti-vation farming. Based on these commonly held stereotypes, entrepreneurs are reluc-tant to invest in Quintana Roo agriculture, and the tourism industry does notconsider joint ventures to promote agriculture for tourism to be a viable alternative.Other reasons given by about half the chefs interviewed for justifying food importsare inconvenient supply system, high local prices, tourist taste preferences and irre-gular local supply.

While failure is the rule, there are a few notable cases of Quintana Roo farmersproducing for tourism industry markets. These rare examples provide valuableinsights into areas of potential linkages and some of the problems and pitfallsfarmers experience in producing for and accessing tourism markets. Don Calvo2,a medium-scale (50 ha) fruit farmer in the southern Laguna Guerrero ejido is one ofthe few Quintana Roo farmers who has had experience selling directly to the tourism

Table 3 Chefs’ opinions as to why products are primarily imported into the region(N ¼ 60). (Frequency of times chefs ranked a specific reason in ‘top two most import-ant’ by product category)

Reasons imported(descending orderof importance)

Total numberresponses foreach reason

Fruit Vegetables Primebeef

Othermeat

Fish Otherseafood

No localproduction

76 27 17 24 5 1 2

Insufficient localquantity

64 34 3 8 1 10 8

Poor local quality 64 16 6 28 2 5 7Inconvenientsupply system

52 4 32 4 4 5 3

High local prices 51 5 28 7 2 5 4Tourist tastepreferences

41 5 5 5 23 1 2

Irregular localsupply

33 5 4 4 8 6 6

Total numberresponses for eachproduct(descendingfrequency)

96 95 80 45 33 32


industry. He began selling papayas to Cancun through a government (Secretarıa deDesarrollo Social – SEDESOL) programme in 1988. When interviewed he explained:

It was an action of the governor – he gathered together the Cancun suppliers, the farmers and thestate government – the three necessary sectors. The government raised awareness with intermedi-aries and got them to buy home-grown products. That is what is needed – that the intermediariesand producers sit down, and that they commit to buy from the state and that the product is satisfac-tory. It is the only way we will be able to sell to that market.

The government identified buyers and markets, provided the truck and Don Calvopaid the transport costs. Through this venture they sold directly to dominant Cancunwholesalers. The government ‘intermediary’ charged the buyers and then Don Calvoreceived his payment in Chetumal. Shortly after the project began, the other farmersin the programme dropped out because they were not in agreement with the termsand prices offered by the government. Don Calvo continued, nevertheless, to workwith the government for five consecutive years. He supported the programmealone during almost that entire period, sending two 3-ton trucks of papayas perweek up to Cancun and Playa del Carmen. By staggering planting on his 12–14 hof papayas he was able to continue supplying product all year round. Don Calvofinally left the government programme in 1993 because he believed the governmentemployees began cheating him over payments.

This farmer then started to supply Cancun on his own. At first he rented a truckand took papaya directly to the Cancun Central de Abastos. He was then invited,with other farmers, to participate in a fruit exposition in the Cancun hotel zone spon-sored by the Mayor of Cancun. This publicity led to an opportunity to begin sellingdirectly to select hotels. The Oasis hotel, the largest hotel in Cancun, now sends atruck directly to Laguna Guerrero to buy papayas, oranges, lemons and watermelonsfrom local farmers for part of the year only, because most production in the region israinfed and therefore seasonal. Scale economies enable the hotel to send a truck tomeet its large volume needs and the hotel pays in cash at the farm gate and coverstransport costs. The farmer’s explanation of the failure to develop linkages betweentourism and agriculture was based on lack of farmer cooperation, few economies ofscale, seasonality of production and shortage of transport as a major obstacle forfarmer entry into the Cancun markets. In the interview, Don Calvo stressed theneed for farmers to be responsible and honour the commitments they make to inter-mediaries. He also believed that the government should intervene on the farmers’behalf to pressure the hotel industry to buy local produce whenever possible.

Don Calvo, when interviewed, said that he knew of the state government’s Comer-cializadora Maya (inaugurated in July 1997) marketing effort. He expressed strongreservations regarding its potential for long-term success, explaining that at the pro-gramme’s inauguration the governor (then Mario Villanueva3) described the pur-pose of Comercializadora Maya to be ‘to defeat the coyote’. He contended, however,that ‘not only have they [the state] become one more coyote, but they slash us witheven greater efficiency’. He added that no one from Laguna Guerrero was involvedin the new project because the prices paid were highly unfavourable to farmers.

The case of Don Mauricio Pat Chan, a milpero and intensive small-plot vegetableproducer in the Zona Maya 4 ejido Tixcacal de la Guardia, provides an interestingexample of an entrepreneurial small farmer indirectly accessing tourism markets.As with most other farmers in his ejido, Don Mauricio also owns, in addition to


milpa, usufruct rights to 1 ha of irrigated land in the nearby ‘citrus corridor’ – a stag-nating government effort to promote production for a juice factory. His revelation, heexplained, was that the supplementary production of vegetables on the irrigatedland was potentially far more profitable than growing citrus alone. In addition tohis subsistence milpa plots, and a small stand of citrus trees, he now manages asmall area of well-tended plots of irrigated cilantro and radishes which he plants,in staggered fashion, all year round. The radishes and cilantro have become hismost important cash crops. He delivers the freshly harvested plants to local interme-diaries who then transport them to Cancun, Playa del Carmen and Chetumal. Once aweek he also takes radishes and cilantro by bus to sell directly to the fruterıas (fruitshops) in Playa del Carmen where he has established some regular customers. Lim-ited by the constraints of public transport, he was only able to sell small amountsthrough this direct channel. Don Mauricio also sold most of his oranges at thefarm gate to an intermediary who then sold them to one small hotel and a freshjuice ‘factory’ in Cancun. The middleman sells the oranges in Cancun for ten timesthe price he pays the farmer. Don Mauricio sold his sheep to an intermediary whoalso came from Cancun. He lamented the restrictions placed on him by lack of trans-port and by middleman control of the market. In an interview he stated that hewould be interested in making direct sales to hotels and restaurants, if only hehad the contacts.

There were five local middlemen in Tixcacal, each of whom owned a 2-t truck.Each intermediary made two trips a week with a truck-load of Tixcacal produce tosell in Cancun, Playa del Carmen, Tulum, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Chetumal andCozumel markets. Products taken to Cancun are typically sold to urban wholesalemarkets (some of which also supply hotels). There were no cases of direct marketingto hotels or restaurants as Tixcacal middlemen do not have access to direct marketingarrangements with hotels. In the interview in the ejido, Don Mauricio’s son-in-lawexplained: ‘the people who transport the product are humble people, lacking edu-cation. They don’t know how to deal directly’. Apart from the lack of experiencenecessary to develop direct marketing linkages, he explained that the Cancun mid-dlemen did not want competition and made it difficult for farmer/intermediaries tosell directly. Another important obstacle to marketing directly to hotels is theinability of farmers, who operate ‘informally’ (to avoid tax obligations), to providean official receipt given their informal operations.5 However, farmers recognize thepotential that tourism markets hold and many express a strong interest in producingfor tourism. Approximately 20 of the Tixcacal community’s farmers have organized agrassroots greenhouse project with the hope of one day supplying tourism marketswith fresh produce.

Perhaps the ejido with the most experience supplying the tourism industry isSaczuquil, located in the vegetable-producing region of the Zona Maya municipalityJose Maria Morelos. Saczuquil ejido comisariado, Enrique Sulub, recounted the ejido’sexperiences with ‘joint ventures’ for tourism production – one in particular, whichleft several farmers bankrupt. In 1995 a company established an office in Puerto Mor-elos, reaching agreement with several ejidatarios to grow watermelons for export andtourism markets. The company leveraged government aid programmes to establishthe business (under the guise of helping ejidatarios). Numerous Jose Maria Morelosejidos entered into the project to supply watermelons to the company. They receivedcredit to produce the watermelons and, after growing them, they delivered the


product. Unfortunately, the company went bankrupt and never paid the ejidos. TheSaczuquil ejido was left owing 100 000 pesos and 13 farmers were bankrupted.Recounting the story when interviewed, Sulub claimed to have met with severalother ejidos in a similar circumstance – bankrupt and unable to get credit for workingcapital. One ejido is said to owe 700 000 pesos and another 500 000 pesos. The ejidos donot know where to turn, as one farmer interviewed explained ‘we don’t even knowhow to go about filing a complaint’.

Triangulating interviews with other agricultural entities in the region – both ejida-tarios and agronomists – it is clear that the failed watermelon effort is, in fact, linkedto an Israeli-run private-sector tomato greenhouse venture in Yucatan. According toan interview with a local Yucatan agronomist, this company has leveraged signifi-cant investments from the Mexican government to install greenhouses in ejidos asa joint venture to ‘help’ ejidatarios – the identical approach to that taken by severallarge Yucatan agro-industries. Through a credit programme, the government pro-vides the ejido with a soft loan to install the greenhouse which they (the ejidatarios)technically own (being also responsible for the debt). While the ejidatarios are thenominal owners of the finished facility, in reality they are nothing more than low-paid wage workers for the company, which handles the technology, marketing, cash-flow, debt management and keeps all of the profits. The agronomist explained thatthe company had a policy of hiring only foreign technical people from the DominicanRepublic and Israel rather than training Mexican agronomists. The owner suppliedgreenhouse tomatoes for export, as he felt that there was no point in trying to sell tothe Cancun tourism market as ‘they are concerned only with price and have noregard for quality’.

Another experience of the ejido a few years earlier, involved producing cucumbersfor the tourism market. SAGAR arranged for Saczuquil and neighbouring ejidos tosupply a group of Cancun hotels with cucumbers. The hotels invested in the basicinputs and the farmers grew the cucumbers. Poorly planned, the project resultedin a market glut. The hotels reneged on their commitment and ended up only buyinga portion of the product – claiming that the farmers could derive profits through saleof the remaining product in the market place. With the market inundated withcucumbers, farmers were unable to sell additional product and ended up throwingit all away. All participating farmers suffered a loss on the project. In an interview,Sulub, a farmer in Tixcacal, said that the Comercializadora de Quintana Roo hadapproached the ejido and bought some chilli peppers but never again returned. Heexplained that they wanted the ejido to plant tomatoes, squash, cucumbers and pep-pers, but the ejido was reluctant as no guarantees were offered – ‘the people areafraid with what happened to them, they are afraid to invest and then they don’tbuy the product and the people lose everything’. He contended, when interviewed,that the ejido could easily produce the crops Comercializadora de Quintana Roo wanted,but he stressed that they must have some kind of guarantee. He further suggestedthat Comercializadora de Quintana Roo provide the ejido with the credit necessary toplant, and agree to buy a certain amount of product, explaining that, ‘this waythey won’t abandon me’. Despite the ejido’s past negative experiences, there is poten-tial for linkages between tourism and agricultural production. In order to achievethis, the ejido needs to coordinate and stagger production so that it can supplyproduct year-round. The problem is lack of credit. There is also a need to arrangeregular transport of products to the tourist markets. Understandably, the ejido is


wary of entering joint ventures with the private sector, yet a surprisingly strong inter-est in potential partnerships remains.

V Conclusions: challenges and potential for creating pro-poor tourism andagriculture linkages

Developing linkages between tourist food consumption and local agricultural pro-duction represents an important potential mechanism through which to achievepro-poor tourism objectives. With local farmers supplying tourism markets, a signifi-cant proportion of the wealth generated by the tourism industry can be channelled torural households. Despite this potential, linking tourism and agriculture has notbeen a central focus of pro-poor tourism initiatives. Only through an analysis ofexisting experiences, such as is presented here, is it possible to understand whythese linkages often fail to materialize.

This research suggests a variety of factors have constrained development of tour-ism and agriculture linkages in Quintana Roo. Basically the most productive farmersare geographically isolated from tourism centres and have little negotiating power,largely because of ethnic and class differences with purchasers in the tourism indus-try. The most productive farmland is in the southern part of the state far from Cancun(see Figure 1) with the result that supply lines are long and hotel chefs and farmersdo not know each other. In some instances, Maya-speaking farmers often have nolanguage in common with hotel chefs or elite middlemen. In rare cases, wherethese barriers do not exist then hotels will take local supplies, as we found whenwe interviewed a weekend hobby farmer on an ejido near Cancun. The farmer wasa civil servant in Cancun and was a personal friend of a hotel chef. He grew tomatoesand supplied the hotel directly.

Inconsistent supplies and the poor quality of local supplies are additional con-straints. This production problem can be attributed to a variety of factors, includinga shortage of capital, credit and investment in the agrarian sector; inappropriate tech-nology and a shortage of effective technical assistance; failure to establish regionalagro-industrial processing; and no point of tourism market entry for local farmers.Also, most of the land in the region is held in communal ejidos that, until recently,were unable to sell or use land as a guarantee in order to leverage assets to obtainworking capital. Ejidos in Quintana Roo have generally failed to develop effectivejoint venture partnerships with the private sector that might provide access to capi-tal. This is mainly due to a lack of communication and the deep mistrust that existsbetween farmers, who are generally Maya, and the local non-Maya entrepreneurialelites and tourism industry suppliers and hotel buyers. Despite the communal natureof land tenure, Quintana Roo producers remain primarily individual, small-scale,informal and unorganized as a group. Thus, not only are economies of scale very lim-ited, leading to higher production costs, but also poor coordination among these pro-ducers leads to frequent gluts and vulnerability to coyote market control. As small,individual producers, they lack adequate transport and cold chain infrastructureand must, therefore, sell their products to intermediaries who come to them (at thefarm gate or regional market) and dictate prices. Another major marketing obstacleis that tourism markets are currently dominated by a few deeply entrenched


suppliers. Corruption plays a role in perpetuating this monopoly as it is common fora supplier to pay ‘kickbacks’ to hotel chefs and food buyers.

While there are clearly significant constraints to stimulating tourism and agricul-ture linkages, the study also identified numerous competitive advantages unique toQuintana Roo. Quintana Roo’s favourable location and appropriate environmentalconditions for producing several varieties of fruits and vegetables gives it access tothree potentially lucrative markets: (1) the tourism industry; (2) the rapidly growingdomestic urban market in tourist poles and; (3) the nontraditional export market.With respect to fresh produce, despite innovations in post-harvest handling, packa-ging, refrigeration and transportation, proximity still represents a very significantadvantage. Given their location, Quintana Roo producers have the opportunity toprovide superior quality products and specialized services such as vine-ripening,same-day harvesting and just-in-time delivery, which fetch premium prices. Also,the region’s tourism industry is diversifying, with the arrival of a growing numberof ‘alternative’ tourists (Torres, 2002a) who express a strong demand for locally pro-duced and indigenous ‘speciality’ foods (Torres, 2002b). Quintana Roo’s environ-mental conditions are well suited to the production of ‘exotic’ niche marketnontraditional exports such as tropical fruits and specialty herbs. A logical out-growth of the tourism market is production for export, which requires the same rig-orous quality standards. Quintana Roo also has a huge transport competitiveadvantage for export over other fruit and vegetable exporters in Latin America, asCancun has the largest number and cheapest direct flights to several major US, Cana-dian and European cities – most returning to their destinations with empty or par-tially empty holds.

Apart from their geographical advantages, Quintana Roo farmers possessother strengths for supplying the tourism industry. Ejidatario farmers have commu-nal ownership of 87.5% of the state’s land (CIAG, 1999), which gives them a signifi-cant asset to invest in joint ventures. Amendments to Article 27 of the MexicanConstitution now permit the privatization of communal ejido lands, so that theland can be used as collateral for loans. However, the traditional use of theselands for subsistence maize production makes for resistance to changes in pro-duction patterns. While much of the state’s land has limited agricultural potential,there are significant tracts of arable land which are under- or unutilized – some ofwhich already has a functioning irrigation infrastructure (Secretaria de Agricultura yRecursos Hidraulicos (SARH), n.d.). Quintana Roo small-scale, family-based farmingsystems are appropriate for the specialized intensive production of niche marketand ‘indigenous’ specialty items, which are currently in demand by new tourist mar-ket segments such as ecotourism and cultural tourism. Existing farming systems inQuintana Roo are also readily adaptable to the production of organic foods, demandfor which is growing among tourists (Torres, 2002b) and in international consumermarkets. However, availability of family labour is declining as a result of rural tourban migration.

To achieve the significant potential that exists for stimulating agriculture for tour-ism in Quintana Roo a number of specific needs must be met. The agricultural sectorhas to become the focus of intensive investment, training, organization and privatesector–farmer joint ventures. The most important first step, however, is to place tour-ism and agriculture linkages on both tourism and agricultural development agendas.In the case of Cancun, coordination between FONATUR and SAGAR has been


negligible throughout the resort’s development. Unlike spontaneous tourismdevelopment, however, PTD affords the unique opportunity to tie agricultural pro-duction for tourism into the resort development from its inception. As the Mexicangovernment, through its all-powerful FONATUR chameleon (Torres, 1997), playeda pivotal role in planning, designing, financing and implementing the tourist resort– so might it also explicitly link tourism to local agriculture. There is an urgent needto establish ‘strategic alliances’ (Telfer, 2000) between the various tourism and agri-culture stakeholders including FONATUR, SAGAR, NGOs, local hotels and restau-rants, local suppliers, regional farmers and private entrepreneurs. Given Cancun’spresent mature stage of development, it is difficult for local farmers to break intoalready entrenched supply networks. Also mass tourism depends on keeping priceslow, so many hotels are not prepared to pay higher prices for fresh locally producedfoodstuffs. However, as tourists become more discerning and concern over food-related illness grows (Torres and Skillicorn, 2004), this may change. The PTDmodel, however, is being replicated along the southern Quintana Roo coast andthroughout Mexico. Cancun, as perhaps the most extreme form of PTD in existence,holds important lessons for other resorts pursuing PTD as a strategy for regionaldevelopment. Only through an integrated approach that considers all aspects of pro-duction, producer organization, post-harvest handling infrastructure and marketing,and that is fortified by strong strategic alliances, is it possible to create sustainablelinkages between tourism and agriculture. Integrating agriculture into originalPTD projects represents a potential mechanism to achieve pro-poor tourism objec-tives within the context of mass tourism development.

Acknowlegements

The authors are grateful to the National Science Foundation (Award #9627457), theUS – Mexico Fulbright Program, the UCMEXUS Program and the University ofCalifornia (Davis) Jastrow Shields and Humanities Award Programs for providingfunding to support this research.

Notes

1. Ejido interviews were conducted with the ejido comisariado, or president, in fourteen ejidos. Inter-views of eleven semi-commercial farmers were conducted mostly in the same ejidos in order to per-mit triangulation and to situate farmers in the broader ejido context. Farmers and ejidos wereselected to represent the various farming systems in the state.

2. The names of all farmers, food buyers and suppliers have been changed to ensure informant anon-ymity. In the case of farmers, the title ‘Don’ is one of respect often used with elders. These farmerswere contacted through ejido camisariados, hotel chefs, other producers or wholesalers using a snow-ball technique.

3. After 2 years in hiding, former Quintana Roo governor Villanueva was charged with assisting theJuarez drug cartel in trafficking over 200 tonnes of Colombian cocaine to the USA.

4. The Zona Maya or Mayan Zone is the most marginalized region of Quintana Roo and contains thevast majority of the state’s indigenous Maya communities.

5. This is confirmed by chefs, 85% of whom responded that they limited procurement from localgrowers because of their inability to provide receipts.


References

Administradores Asociados Lerma 1983:Estudios de Factibilidad Tecnica, Economica yFinanciera para la Instalacion de un Invernaderode Ambiente Controlado para la Produccion deLechuga en Cancun, Quintana Roo. FeasibilityStudy.

Andreatta, S. 1998: Transformation of the agro-food sector: lessons from the Caribbean.Human Organization 57(4), 414–29.

Ashley, C. 2000: The impacts of tourism on rurallivelihoods: Namibia’s experience. WorkingPaper 128. London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute.

Ashley, C. and Jones, B. 2001: Jointventures between communities and tourisminvestors: experience in southern Africa.International Journal of Tourism Research 3(2),407–23.

Ashley, C., Elliott, J., Sikoyo, G. and Hanlon, K.1999: Handbook for assessing the economic andlivelihood impacts of wildlife enterprises. London:Overseas Development Institute (ODI) andAfrican Wildlife Foundation (AWF).

Ashley, C., Boyd, C. and Goodwin, H. 2000: Pro-poor tourism: putting poverty at the heart ofthe tourism agenda. Natural Resource Perspec-tives (51), 1–6.

Ashley, C., Goodwin, H. and Roe, D. 2001a: Pro-poor tourism strategies: expanding opportunitiesfor the poor. Pro-Poor Tourism Briefing No.1(April), for the Centre for Responsible Tourism(CRT), International Institute for Environmentand Development (IIED) and Overseas Devel-opment Institute (ODI). http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/ppt-brief1.pdfþPro-PoorþTourismþ Strategies:þ ExpandingþOpportu-nitiesþ forþ theþ Poor.þþ&hl-en (last acce-ssed June 2004).

Ashley, C., Roe, D. and Goodwin, H. 2001b: Pro-poor tourism strategies: making tourism work forthe poor. Pro-Poor Tourism Report No.1(April) for the Overseas Development Insti-tute, London. Nottingham: Russell Press.

BBC 2002: Poverty ‘fueling terrorism’. BBC News,22 March 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_1886000/1886617.stm(last accessed 13 June 2002).

Belisle, F.J. 1983: Tourism and food productionin the Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research10, 497–513.

Belisle, F.J. 1984a: Tourism and food imports:the case of Jamaica. Economic Developmentand Cultural Change 32, 819–42.

—— 1984b: The significance and structure ofhotel food supply in Jamaica. Geography 1,219–33.

Bosselman, F.P. 1978: In the wake of the tourist:managing special places in eight countries.Washington DC: The Conservation Foun-dation.

Bowen, R.L., Cox, L.J. and Fox, M. 1991: Theinterface between tourism and agriculture.The Journal of Tourism Studies 2(2), 43–54.

Britton, S. 1981: The spatial organisation of tour-ism in a neo-colonial economy: a Fiji casestudy. Pacific Viewpoint 21(2), 144–65.

—— 1982: The political economy of tourism inthe Third World. Annals of Tourism Research9, 331–58.

—— 1991: Tourism, capital, and place: towards acritical geography of tourism. Environmentand Planning D: Society and Space 9, 451–78.

Brohman, J. 1996: New directions in tourism forThird World development. Annals of TourismResearch 23(1), 48–78.

Bryden, J.M. 1973: Tourism and development: acase study of the Commonwealth Caribbean.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carney, D. 1999: Approaches to sustainable liveli-hoods for the rural poor. ODI Poverty BriefingNo. 2 (January). London: ODI.

Cater, E. 1987: Tourism in the least developedcountries. Annals of Tourism Research 14,202–26.

Cattarinich, X. 2001: Pro-poor tourism initiativesin developing countries: analysis of secondarycase studies. Pro-Poor Tourism (PPT) WorkingPaper No. 8 for Centre for Responsible Tour-ism at the University of Greenwich (CRT),International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED) and Department forInternational Development (DFID); http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/ppt-initiatives.html (last accessed June 2004).

Centro de Investigaciones de QuintanaRoo (CIQRO) 1981: Desarrollo de la Base Tecno-logica Para la Implementacion de Sistemas deCultivo Hidroponico en Quintana Roo. ProjectProposal, Puerto Morelos, Quintana Roo,Mexico

Chambers, R. and Conway, G.R. 1992: Sustain-able rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the21st century. Institute of Development Studiesdiscussion paper no. 296. Brighton: Univer-sity of Sussex Institute of DevelopmentStudies.


CIAG 1999: Plan Estrategico de De sarrollo Integralde Estado de Quintana Roo 2000 – 2025: FaseI. Seleccion de Motores y Factores Claves. Report,ITESM, December 1999. Monteney, Mexico.

Clancy, M.J. 1999: Tourism and development:evidence from Mexico. Annals of TourismResearch 26(1), 1–20.

—— 2001: Exporting paradise: tourism and develop-ment in Mexico. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Cothran, D.A. and Cothran, C.C. 1998: Promiseor political risk for Mexican tourism. Annalsof Tourism Research 25(2), 477–97.

Cox, L.J., Fox, M. and Bowen, R.L. 1994: Doestourism destroy agriculture? Annals of Tour-ism Research 22, 210–13.

Crick, M. 1989: Representations of internationaltourism in the social sciences: sun, sand, sex,sights, savings and servility. Annual Review ofAnthropology 18, 307–44.

Department for International Development(DFID) 1999a: Sustainable tourism and povertyelimination study. Report for Department forInternational Development by Deloitte &Touche, IIED and ODI.

Department for International Development(DFID) 1999b: Tourism and poverty elimination:untapped potential study. Report for Depart-ment for International Development, April.

Dieke, P. 1991: Policies for tourism developmentin Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research 18, 269–94.

—— 1993: Tourism and development policy inGambia. Annals of Tourism Research 20, 423–49.

Doxey, G.V. and Associates 1971: The touristindustry in Barbados: a socio-economic assess-ment. Kitchener, Canada: Dusco Graphics.

Enriquez Savignac, A. 1972: The computerplanning of Cancun Island, Mexico: a newresort complex. In The Travel Research Associ-ation, Proceedings of Third Annual Conference.13–16, August, Quebec, Canada.

Estado de Quintana Roo Secretarıa de Comer-cio y Fomento Industrial 1994: Proyecto: Cen-tro de Acopio: Ubicacion Felipe Carrillo Puerto.Project Proposal, Chetumal, Quintana Roo,Mexico.

Farrington, J. 2001: Sustainable livelihoods, rightsand the new architecture of aid. ODI NaturalResource Perspectives, no. 69, June 2001.Overseas Development Institute, UK.

Fideicomiso de Riesgo Compartido GerenciaEstatal Quintana Roo 1996: Proyecto de Agri-cultura de Riego en la Zona Maya. Project Pro-posal, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Food and Agriculture Organization/EconomicCommission for Europe (FAO/ECE)

1982: Report of the symposium on agriculture andtourism. Report Presented at FAO/ECE Work-ing Party on Agrarian Structures and FarmRationalization. Symposium on Agricultureand Tourism, Mariehamn, Finland, 7–12 June1982. New York: UN Economic Commissionfor Europe.

Ghimire, K. 1997: Emerging mass tourism in thesouth: reflections on the social opportunities andcosts of national and regional tourism in develop-ing counties. Discussion Paper No. 85, April.Geneva: United Nations Research Institutefor Social Development (UNRISD).

Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo Secre-tarıa de Fomento Agropecuario 1983: Pro-grama de Hortalizas en las Unidades de Riegode Tampak. Project Proposal, Chetumal, Quin-tana Roo, Mexico.

Goffe, P.W. 1975: How developing nations viewtourism: development potential of internationaltourism in Jamaica. The Cornell Hotel and Restau-rant Administration Quarterly 16, 24–31.

Gomes, A.J. 1993: Integrating tourism and agri-cultural development. In Gayle, D.J. andGoodrich, J.N., editors, Tourism marketingand management in the Caribbean. Londonand New York: Routledge, 155–66.

Gooding, E.G.B. 1971: Food production in Bar-bados with particular reference to tourism.In Doxey, G.V. et al. (eds) The tourist industryin Barbados. Ontario: Dusco Graphics.

Goodwin, H. 1998: Sustainable tourism and povertyalleviation. Discussion paper for DFID/DETRWorkshop on Sustainable Tourism and Poverty,13 October 1998. http://216. 239.39.104/search?q-cache:6hMYSdSE-1MJ: www.icrtourism.org/Publications/PovertPaper2.doc þGoodwin, þHarold þ 1998 þ Sustainable þTourism (last accesed 13 July 2004).

Goodwin, H. 2000: Pro-poor tourism: opportunitiesfor sustainable development. Frankfurt, Devel-opment and Cooperation Paper No. 5,September/October, 12–14.

Green, J. 1987: Paper presented to the Centro deInvestigaciones de Quintana Roo, A.C.Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, unpublished.

Guzman, L. 2001: Mexico: market developmentreports. Mexico’s Caribbean Market for FoodProducts. Gain Report #MX1216, USDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) ForeignAgricultural Service.

Hemmati, M. editor 1999: Gender and tourism:women’s employment and participation in tour-ism. London: UNED-UK.


Hermans, D. 1981: The encountering of agricul-ture and tourism: a catalan case. Annals ofTourism Research 8, 462–79.

Konrad, H. 1980: Una Poblacion Chiclera:Contexto Historico, Economico y un PerfilDemografico. Boletın E.C.A.U.D.Y. 8(45),2–39.

Liebman Parrinello, G. 1996: Motivational andanticipation in post-industrial tourism. InApostolopoulos, Y., Leivadi, S. and Yianna-kis, A., editors, The sociology of tourism: theor-etical and empirical investigaciones. Londonand New York: Routledge, 75–89.

Lundgren, J. 1971: Agricultural marketing anddistribution arrangements with respect tothe resort hotel in the Caribbean. In Thomas,R.D., editor, Sixth West Indian AgriculturalEconomics Conference, Proceedings. George-town, Guyana, 28 March – 2 April 1971.St. Augustine: University of the West Indies,Department of Agricultural Economics andFarm Management.

Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. 1982: Tourism: econ-omic, physical and social impacts. New York:Longman.

McElroy, J.L. and de Albuquerque, K. 1990:Sustainable small-scale agriculture in smallCaribbean islands. Society and NaturalResources 3, 109–129.

Miller, L.G. 1985: Linking tourism and agricul-ture to create jobs and reduce migrationin the Caribbean. In Pastor, R.A. editor,Migration and development in the Caribbean:the unexplored connection. Boulder CO andLondon: Westview Press, 289–300.

Milne, S. 1992: Tourism and development inSouth Pacific Microstates. Annals of TourismResearch 19, 191–212.

—— 1997: Tourism, dependency and South Paci-fic Microstates: beyond the vicious cycle? InLockhart, D.G. and Drakakis-Smith, D.,editors, Island tourism: trends and prospects.London and New York: Pinter, 281–301.

Momsen, J. 1972: Report on vegetable productionand the tourist industry in St Lucia. Universityof Calgary, Canada.

—— 1973: Report on vegetable production and thetourist industry in Montserat. University ofCalgary, Canada.

——1986: Linkages between tourism and agricul-ture: problems for the smaller Caribbean econom-ies. University of Newcastle-upon-Tyre,Seminar Paper 45.

—— 1998: Caribbean tourism and agriculture:new linkages in the global Era? In Klak, T.,editor, Globalization and neoliberalism: theCaribbean context. Lanham MD and Oxford:Rowman & Littleman Publishers, Inc., 115–33.

—— 1999: A sustainable tourism project in Mex-ico. In Hammati, M., editor, Gender and tour-ism: women’s employment and participation intourism. London: UNED-UK, 142–48.

Momsen, J.H. 2002: NGOs, gender and indigen-ous grassroots development. Journal of Inter-national Development 14, 1–9.

—— 2003: Participatory development and indi-genous communities in the Mexican Carib-bean. In Pugh, J. and Potter, R., editors,Participatory planning in the Caribbean: lessonsfrom practice. Aldershot: Ashgate, 155–72.

Monk, J. and Alexander, C.S. 1986: Freeport fall-out: gender, employment, and migration onMargarita Island. Annals of Tourism Research13, 393–413.

Moscardo, G. and Pearce, P.L. 1999: Under-standing ethnic Tourists. Annals of TourismResearch 26(2), 416–34.

Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. 1998: Tourism andsustainability: new tourism in the Third World.London and New York: Routledge.

O’Ferral, A.M. 1991: Tourism and agriculture onthe north coast of the Dominican Republic.Revista Geografica 113, 171–91.

Organization of American States (OAS)/Caribbean Tourism Research and Develop-ment Centre (CTRC) 1984: Tourism and agri-cultural linkages in the Caribbean. Final ReportOAS/CTRC Workshop, 18–19 July, Hastings,Barbados.

Overseas Development Institute 2001: How ispro poor tourism different from other tourism-isms? http://www.odi.org.uk/rpeg/pptdiffer-ence.html (last accessed 10 June 2002).

Pattullo, P. 1996: Last resorts. London: LatinAmerica Bureau and Cassell.

Pi-Sunyer, O. 1973: Tourism and its discontents:the impact of a new industry on a CatalanCommunity. Studies in European Society 1, 1–20.

Pi-Sunyer, O. and Thomas, R.B. 1997: Tourism,environmentalism, and cultural survival inQuintana Roo. In Johnson, B.R., editor, Lifeand death matters: human rights and the environ-ment at the end of the Millennium. WalnutCreek CA: AltaMira Press, 187–212.

Pizam, A. and Sussmann, S. 1995: Does nation-ality affect tourist behavior? Annals of TourismResearch 4, 901–17.


Poon, A. 1989: Competitive strategies for a ‘NewTourism.’ In Cooper, C., editor, Progress intourism, recreation and hospitality management.1, London: Belhaven Press.

Poultney, C. and Spenceley, A. 2001: Practicalstrategies for pro-poor tourism, wilderness safarisSouth Africa: Rocktail Bay and Ndumu Lodge.Pro-Poor Tourism Working Paper No. 7,April. For the Centre for Responsible Tourism(CRT), International Institute for Environ-ment (IIED) and Development and OverseasDevelopment Institute (ODI).

Renard, Y. 2001: Practical strategies for pro-poortourism: A case study of the St. Lucia HeritageTourism Programme. Pro-Poor Tourism Work-ing Paper No. 7, April. for the Centre forResponsible Tourism (CRT), InternationalInstitute for Environment (IIED) and Devel-opment and Overseas Development Institute(ODI).

Rodenburg, E.E. 1980: The effect of scale in econ-omic development: tourism in Bali. Annals ofTourism Research 12(2), 177–96.

Roe, D. and Urquhart Khanya, P. 2001: Pro-poortourism: harnessing the world’s largest industryfor the world’s poor. Prepared for World Sum-mit on Sustainable Development, Johannes-burg, 2002. London: International Institutefor Environment and Development (IIED)and Regional and International NetworkingGroup (RING).

Roe, D., Goodwin, H. and Ashley, C. 2002: Thetourism industry and poverty reduction: abusiness primer. Pro-poor Tourism BriefingNo. 2 (March). For the Centre for ResponsibleTourism (CRT), International Institute forEnvironment (IIED) and Development andOverseas Development Institute (ODI).

Saville, N.M. 2001: Practical strategies for pro-poortourism: case study of pro-poor tourism and SNVin Humla District, West Nepal. Working PaperNo. 8 for Centre for Responsible Tourism atthe University of Greenwich (CRT), Inter-national Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED) and Department forInternational Development (IAD).

Secretaria de Agricultura, Garadaria y Desar-ouo (SAGAR) 1995 Programa de Abastos deProductos Hortofrutıcolas a Grupos Hoteleros deCancun, Quintana Roo. Project Proposal, Che-tumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidrauli-cos (SAHR) Map of Quintana Roo regions of agri-cultural potential. Internal map prepared by the

Quintana Roo Secretaria de Agricultura yRecursos Hidraulicos (SARH) (Departmentof Agriculture).

Shah, K. and Gupta, V. 2000: Tourism, thepoor and other stakeholders: experience in Asia.Report for the Overseas DevelopmentInstitute and the Fair Trade in Tourism Pro-ject, London (April). Nottingham: RussellPress.

Sharkey, D.A. and Momsen, J. 1995: Tourism inDominica, West Indies: problems and pro-spects. Caribbean Geography 6(1), 40–51.

Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 1994: Critical issuesin tourism: a geographical perspective. Oxfordand Cambridge MA: Blackwell.

Singh, N. and Wanmali, S. 1998: Sustainable live-lihoods concept paper. New York: UnitedNations Development Programme.

Sutherland, N.S. Agriculture and tourism in theScottish Highlands and Islands. Report trans-mitted by the Government of the UnitedKingdom.

Taylor, B.E., Morison, J.B. and Fleming, E.M.1991: The economic impact of food importsubstitution in the Bahamas. Social and Econ-omic Studies 40(2) 45–62.

Telfer, D.J. 1996: Food purchases in a five-starhotel: a case study of the Aquila PrambananHotel, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. TourismEconomics: The Business and Finance of Tourismand Recreation 2, 321–38.

—— 2000: Tastes of Niagara: building strategicalliances between tourism and agriculture.International Journal of Hospitality & TourismAdministration 1(1), 71–88.

—— 2001: Strategic alliances along the Niagarawine route. Tourism Management 22, 21–30.

Tefler, D.J. and Wall, G. 1996: Linkages betweentourism and food production. Annals of Tour-ism Research 23(3), 635–53.

—— 2000: Strengthening backward economiclinkages: local food purchasing by threeIndonesian hotels. Tourism Geographies 2,421–47.

Torres Maldonado, E.J. 1997: From tropical hellto tourist paradise: state intervention andtourist entrepreneurship in Mexican Carib-bean. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University ofTexas at Austin.

Torres, R. 2000: Linkages between tourism andagriculture in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Ph.D.Dissertation, University of California at Davis.

—— 2002a: Cancun’s tourism developmentfrom a Fordist spectrum of analysis. TouristStudies 2(1), 87–116.


—— 2002b: Toward a better understandingof tourism and agriculture linkages in theYucatan: tourist food consumption and prefer-ences. Tourism Geographies 4(3), 282–306.

—— 2003: Linkages between tourism and agri-culture in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Annals ofTourism Research 30(3), 546–66.

Torres, R.M. and Momsen, J.H. (in press) Grin-golandia: the construction of transnationaltourism space in Mexico. In Bloom, N., editor,Mexican lands, American spaces: building asecond nation in Mexico, 1930–present. Scho-larly Resources.

Torres, R.M. and Skillicorn, P.W. 2004: Monte-zuma’s revenge: how sanitation concernsmay injure Mexico’s tourist industry. CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly45, 132–44.

Turner, L. and Ash, J. 1975: The golden hordes:international tourism and the pleasure periphery.London: Constable.

Tyrakowski, K. 1986: The role of tourism in landutilization conflicts on the Spanish Mediter-ranean coast. GeoJournal 13, 19–26.

Urry, J. 1990. The tourist gaze: leisure and travel incontemporary societies. London, Newbury ParkCA, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

—— 1995: Consuming places. London and NewYork: Routledge.

USAID and the Caribbean Development Bank1984: The study of linkages between tourism andlocal agriculture in Grenada, St. Vincent, St.Lucia and the Bahamas. Study Report.

Valarche, J. 1984: Agriculture and tourism.Conflict and complementarity: the Swissexample. In Agriculture and the management

of natural resources: proceedings of the eighthsymposium of the European Association of Agri-culture Economics. Milan, Italy.

Vanhove, N. 1997: Mass tourism: benefits andcosts. In Wahab, S. and Pigram, J.J., editors,Tourism, development and growth: the challengeof sustainability. London and New York:Routledge, 50–77.

Villa Rojas, A. 1945: The Maya of East CentralQuintana Roo. Washington DC: CarnegieInstitution.

Wall, G. 1997: Sustainable tourism: unsustain-able development. In Wahab, S. andPigram, J.J., editors, Tourism, development andgrowth: the challenge of sustainability. Londonand New York: Routledge, 33–49.

Weaver, D.B. 1991: Atternative to mass tourismin Dominica. Annals of Tourism Research 18,414–32.

—— 1998: Peripheries of the periphery: tourismin Tobago and Barbuda. Annals of TourismResearch 25(2), 292–313.

Williams, A. and Shaw, G. 1998: Tourism andthe environment: sustainability and econ-omic restructuring? In Hall, C.M. and Lew,A.A., editors, Sustainable tourism: a geographi-cal perspective. New York: Longman, 49–59.

World Bank 2002: Millennium development goals:eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. http://www.developmentgoals.org/poverty.htm(last accessed 6 June 2002).

World Tourism Organization (WTO) 1999: Tour-ism highlights. Madrid: WTO.

Yah Sanchez, T. 1997: Cancun, Buen MercadoPara los Productores del Paıs. Novedades deQuintana Roo Monday, 29 April, 1997, 8A


Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives

Documents

Transcript of Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives