Research on Tourism, Indigenous Peoples and Economic Development: A Missing Component

Abstract

Indigenous tourism is a term commonly used to describe tourism that involves indigenous peoples or first nations in tourism. In recent years, research attention on this topic has broadened and expanded greatly, reflecting both increased involvement of indigenous peoples and their more active participation in controlling and utilising a widening range of tourism and economic development. This more active participation has taken tourism beyond its traditional role as a limited source of employment and economic development to a stage at which tourism is being utilised as an agent to improve the indigenous political position with respect to controlling a wider range of development and strengthening regional and national identities. The paper briefly reviews research on indigenous tourism over the past half-century, noting the increase in volume and the changing nature and role of research on tourism involving indigenous peoples, but also longstanding neglect of some elements of economic development, which are discussed in more detail It also explores current and likely future issues needing research attention in the light of changing motivations for participation in indigenous tourism, and the spread of indigenous tourism beyond traditional areas into activities more associated with metropolitan and mass tourist markets.

1. Introduction

Research on indigenous peoples and their involvement with tourism has grown rapidly in recent years, yet despite this growth, proportionally less attention has been paid to the topic of economic development than to other subjects. This paper briefly reviews past research in the tourism field on indigenous tourism and traces the motivations and characteristics of interest in this field, noting the changing priorities in areas of study. One of the findings is the surprisingly little attention paid to specific non-traditional forms of economic development, and possible reasons for this are discussed. The future directions and nature of research on indigenous peoples and tourism are considered in the context of changing views and attitudes towards indigenous control of tourism. Tourism has a number of definitions and many sub-forms, and this is particularly so in the context of what has come to be called “indigenous tourism”. What is meant by that indigenous tourism is not tourism by indigenous peoples, as the term might suggest, but tourism that is in some way involved with indigenous peoples [1]. It is worth noting that there are very few pieces of research on participation by indigenous peoples as tourists themselves, as a potential market, or on their economic contribution to destination areas, with only one paper on this topic appearing in the literature search used in the past year [2]. Indigenous peoples is the term used most commonly for members of the over 5000 different groups of peoples in over 70 countries, populations which universally have suffered from poverty, conflict, discrimination and marginalisation [3]. The paper proceeds with a review of past research on the topic of tourism and indigenous peoples, and the major areas of study involved. It notes the multiple terms used in the study of this topic and elaborates on the motivations of those becoming involved in this form of tourism. It discusses the nature of the research in the context of a matrix [1] contrasting indigenous control and theme of tourism, and the fact that there has been an incomplete coverage in the tourism literature of non-traditional forms of economic development in an indigenous context, despite successful major developments in various countries and communities. The paper concludes with a review of the likely future directions of research in this area, reflecting increasing efforts to empower indigenous peoples to control their involvement in and development of tourism.

2. Past Research

It is important to at least briefly review past research on indigenous tourism in order to understand better how it has related to indigenous communities involved in tourism [4] and in particular, why it has appeared to avoid discussion on the full range of economic development potential of tourism involving indigenous peoples. Much of the research which academics produce appears most commonly in journals or books, and the vast majority of such publications were produced by academics for an academic audience. Much of the attention paid to indigenous peoples in terms of tourism, particularly in the early decades of study, was by anthropologists and sociologists, and the focus, appropriately for those disciplines, was primarily on the cultural and social implications and issues arising from indigenous involvement in tourism. This has resulted that some, perhaps most, of that published research is at best of passing interest only to many indigenous peoples, and more often than not, deals at best peripherally with any resulting or potential economic development.

The comprehensive paper by Whitford and Ruhanen [4] reviewed over four hundred academic publications on tourism and indigenous peoples, and it would be pointless to repeat much of that ground here. It is appropriate, however, to pick up on some of the points they made and bring their research more up to date. Whitford and Ruhanen began by reviewing the development of tourism’s interest and involvement in indigenous peoples, noting it stemming from curiosity about the “exotic”, a term frequently used in this context. They note that more formal government involvement in indigenous tourism began in the 1980s and that by the end of the twentieth-century indigenous peoples, their rights and problems were being drawn to the attention of bodies such as the United Nations. The period 1995 to 2004 was designated the First Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, followed by a second such period which ran until 2015. During this second period several important benchmarks were established, including the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and in 2012 the Larrakia Declaration which outlined six key principles to guide the development of Indigenous tourism [4,5]. In the same year, the World Indigenous Tourism Alliance was established as a global network of over 170 organisations, mostly indigenous, in over 40 countries [6].

Tourism began to be promoted in this period as a potential agent for attaining some of the Millennium Goals of Sustainable Development, including alleviating poverty [7], and particularly as an agent for helping protect and preserve indigenous cultures and practices. The potentially negative impacts of tourism on culture, local environments, and loss of control of community resources were given considerable attention and have remained of primary concern in recent years [8]. Whitford and Ruhanen [4] pointed out the geographical imbalance of the research, with much of the attention being focused on Australasia and North America, with much less attention paid to Europe or Asia, and next to nothing in the early periods of the research on Latin America, Africa or the Middle East. This reflected the origins and interests of those engaging in research on this topic. In more recent years proportionally more attention has been paid to South East Asia, in particular Thailand, Taiwan and Peoples’ Republic of China, and also Laos and the Philippines. Whitford and Ruhanen summarized their findings under three headings. These were: what constitutes sustainable Indigenous Tourism; what is an appropriate research methodology; and what research outcomes are needed. The first topic included issues such as what indigenous groups wanted from tourism, and how to increase their involvement, empowerment and control. The second topic argued for research to be guided by indigenous peoples rather than the Academy, more open research, and knowledge exchange, and the third dealt with moving from rhetoric to action, knowledge creation and holistic appropriate outcomes [4]. While the issue of appropriate economic development to raise the quality of life and increase opportunities for indigenous peoples was noted as one area of research, it did not feature specifically in their summary figure.

This paper has followed a similar procedure to that of Whitford and Ruhanen [4] in searching academic journals and books under several headings to see how research had continued in more recent years and if the focus had changed. Using a common academic search engine (Scopus), several related subjects listed in

Table 1. Articles published on related indigenous tourism themes.

Tourism and Indigenous Peoples	795
Tourism and Indigenous Communities	781
Tourism and Natives	992
Tourism and Native Peoples	234
Tourism and First Nations	489
Tourism and Aboriginals	39
Tourism and Indians	1354
Tourism and Local Peoples	3456

Source: SCOPUS.

were searched by title and keywords) to identify how many papers had been published in the general field under review until 2020 and the subjects examined. It was not the purpose of the examination to conduct a bibliometric survey, but to ascertain if the growth noted [4] had continued since 2016, as was shown to be the case (Figure 1), and to explore if the lack of attention of specific forms of economic development had continued. One issue illustrated in Table 1 is the multiple terms used in this general field with an overlap between articles within these different categories. A second issue is that terms such as “native” in such a search also included things such as “native species”, while “local” also included non-indigenous peoples and “Indians” also included studies dealing with the country of India. Table 1 is included to illustrate these two features, the considerable interest in the broad area of tourism to specific ethnic and racial groups as demonstrated by the numbers of papers published, and the variety of terms used to portray such activity. Given the existence of the pioneering work of Whitford and Ruhanen [4], and earlier work by this author [1], this paper focuses on research in the tourism literature using the term “indigenous tourism” which has emerged as the most commonly used phrase and removes some of the problems associated with the other terms shown in Table 1.

One key factor which emerged was the continued rapid growth in terms of total papers (795 to 2020) published using the term, Tourism and Indigenous Peoples (Figure 1). There are a number of factors potentially affecting this growth, including the pressure on academics to publish, an increase in the numbers of tourism journals, and increasing use of the term “indigenous tourism” at the expense of other terms, although the latter would not appear to be the case given the number of articles using other terms. Specifically explaining the growth in numbers of articles is not the focus of the paper, such a task would require surveying the authors involved. Confirmation of interest in research in this general field is supported by the large number of papers published under the variety of terms listed in Table 1. What is perhaps most encouraging about that fact is that not only is interest clearly growing in the subject, but the proportion of authors and co-authors who are indigenous themselves has also grown, indicating perhaps a move towards a clearer portrayal of indigenous concerns about tourism development. What is perhaps surprising is that it is still only a relatively small percentage of papers that deal with the specific topic of tourist-related economic development, and an almost complete absence of consideration of economic theories or models. Perhaps more surprising is the almost total absence of research dealing with what might be described as non-traditional Indigenous forms of economic development related to tourism in the tourism literature, despite featuring in other literature.

3. Stages of and Motivation for Involvement

It is not unreasonable to propose that part of this neglect and narrowness of focus of the economic aspect of such involvement may lie in the motivations of the various parties which established tourist visitation to indigenous peoples. The involvement of tourism with indigenous peoples in various forms is older than may be imagined. Weaver [9] argued that “indigenous tourism” had gone through six phases, which he called pre European; exposure; exhibitionism and exploitation (with artefacts in museums etc.); exhibitionism and exploitation in remnant areas and resistance; empowerment, and finally; quasi empowerment and “shadow indigenous tourism”. In his discussion of this categorization, Weaver does not discuss economic development or business opportunities specifically, rather focusing on the social and cultural issues resulting from the interaction between indigenous and non-indigenous groups, or “hosts and guests” to use Smith’s terminology [10].

In taking an alternative view, it is possible to suggest that the interaction of tourists and indigenous peoples was influenced by a broader set of motivations, particularly on the part of the non-indigenous populations involved, as illustrated in Figure 2. This figure illustrates the increasing range of motivations involved in tourism to indigenous peoples from the time of first contact between indigenous groups and visitors. Precise timelines are not feasible to portray because of the great variation in individual cases, reflecting factors including accessibility, remoteness, policies of governments and indigenous groups about allowing contact and under what conditions, and the rate of tourism development in general in specific areas. In some cases indigenous populations have had a long period of contact with outside peoples and tourists and a variety of motivations for that contact, in other cases, the time period between first contact and the present day may be only a century or even less.

It can be argued that the first motivation for tourist-related contact was Obligation or Necessity, a need for people to know of other cultures. This motivation was found in the elite of society of the time, in the form of the first tourists of the Grand Tour in Europe in the 1600s [11] although the perceptions of these other cultures varied from viewing them as examples of how one should behave, to one of disrespect. That motivation moved to Curiosity, particularly as tourism spread to remoter parts of the world (in the perceptions of tourist generating countries) and contact with indigenous peoples became more frequent, reflecting such forces as colonialism, much-improved transportation services, and the development of international economic linkages [12]. This marked the beginning of economic motivations for visiting indigenous peoples and was stimulated and marketed by companies and individuals who saw economic benefits from increased business in fields such as transportation and accommodation, and their early customers were again the affluent segments of societies. In turn to this was added Exploitation, primarily by non-indigenous agencies who foresaw economic benefits to their stakeholders from taking tourists to view indigenous peoples in their settings. This motivation was almost entirely economic, involving enterprises such as the Canadian Pacific Railway in Canada and its equivalents in the west of the United States, major shipping lines such as Pacific and Orient (P&O) trading across the Pacific in particular [12], and to a much lesser degree, international airlines and tour companies. Some of the early tour companies, such as Thomas Cook, had already begun to offer tours to “foreign lands” which also encourage visitation to local communities to “see the natives”, who were promoted as features of interest. The role of indigenous communities in these stages was almost entirely passive, providing an attraction and gaining very little in terms of employment or from sales of products.

This period was followed by Economic Improvement, with governments (regional and national) and supporting agencies at national and international levels encouraging indigenous tourism as a way of reducing poverty amongst indigenous peoples, albeit with concerns over potential negative impacts of the development of tourism. Johnston ([13], p.89) for example, noted “The tourism industry, especially ecotourism, is arguably the prime force today threatening indigenous homelands and cultures”. At this stage, participation was sometimes initiated by indigenous communities themselves, realizing that there were opportunities for economic development that could be controlled by the local communities themselves and thus directed to meet local needs and preferences [14,15,16]. Such developments could then be aimed at maximizing benefits while specifically avoiding potential conflicts over resource use, exploitation of traditions, and cultural misappropriation. The Maori at the hot springs at Rotorua in New Zealand, are one example, building on the established pattern of tourist visitation to the geothermal terraces first visited by tourists at the end of the nineteenth century [17]. Initially, however, almost all of the economic development was related directly to traditional activities, products and culture, albeit under partial or complete indigenous control.

This pattern fits the model of Butler and Hinch [18] whereby the degree of control of indigenous tourism can shift from a low level to a high level (Figure 3). At the same time, there was the slight emergence of involvement in the economic development of tourism that went beyond the “culture dispossessed” element of that model to what is shown in that figure as “diversified indigenous tourism”. This represents the beginning of a major and significant change in indigenous peoples’ involvement in tourism, into the stage of Involvement, by their participating in the economic development of tourism that was indigenous in control and ownership but not related to indigenous culture to any significant degree. It is this element that is relatively lacking in the tourism literature that was reviewed compared to other foci. This stage reflects the beginning of tourism to indigenous communities initiated by themselves, both to showcase their cultures and practices, but also reflecting an interest in the economic benefits potentially available. Involvement had long been a feature of indigenous tourism, but primarily as an element being observed rather than as an agent of development, the latter traditionally remaining under the control of external agencies, both public and private. The shift in emphasis came about for a number of reasons, including improved access to previously relatively remote indigenous locations, greater interest in traditional cultures, and greater publicity and promotion of indigenous attractions. From being passive attractions, indigenous populations began to participate actively, as guides, information sources, educators, and facility owners and operators as involvement grew. This situation also saw increasing issues and problems, such as clashes over behaviour, over access to specific areas and resources and over cultural disagreements. One good example of such issues was access to Uluru (Ayers Rock) in central Australia. Uluru had become a major tourist attraction once access was available by road and air, and accommodation provided. One of the tourist attractions was climbing the rock, an activity opposed by the local tribe (Anangu) who regarded the monolith as a sacred feature. It took many years of protest, despite Uluru being in a national park, created by the courtesy of the local people, to end the practice [5], reflecting not only greater involvement in management by the local aboriginals but also their re-gaining an element of control over the nature and scale of development.

The final stage of the process being discussed is that of Control of indigenous tourism by indigenous peoples. It is important to recognize that control in this situation does not mean only control of what had become traditional tourist activities on indigenous lands, but also control over non-traditional indigenous tourist activities and related services including transportation and accommodation at all scales and not necessarily in traditional forms. In some cases, this has meant indigenous communities becoming engaged in the economic development of tourism outwith their traditional reservations and very clearly engaged in forms of tourism with little or no links to indigenous traditions. This is a logical progression by a section of the population in many countries which had previously been denied access to the control and direction of tourism and other economic development. Such denial in many cases was by both neglect and by a misperception of their abilities and inclinations, as well as deliberate suppression, thus preventing an appropriate level of involvement in the economic development of tourism. Catellino ([19], p. 274) summed up the situation in North America “With ongoing consequences for American Indians, the New World Indian has been a pervasive figure of constitutive exclusion in modern theories of money, property, and government”. The most obvious example of broadening of involvement is probably in the area of casino expansion in the United States of America, with the attendant benefits and problems which have ensued [20]. Major changes in the legal arrangements for gambling in the United States were undertaken in the 1970s which resulted in two significant impacts for indigenous communities and their economic development [21]. In the first case, the monopoly on gambling held by Nevada was broken with gambling being allowed, under varying degrees of control, in all states, and secondly, gambling was legally permitted on Indian Reservations. The implications and changes which the relevant legislation brought about were massive for many indigenous groups [22], and illustrated what could be achieved in terms of potential economic development in previously “useless” areas and how such development could take place under indigenous control. Little of this is discussed in the tourist academic literature ([23] is somewhat of an exception), where the focus has remained on culture and tradition and associated forms of tourism development and its implications [24]. There is considerable discussion of these alternative economic developments related to tourism in other literature [19,25,26,27] under such search topics as “indigenous peoples and casinos” (183 references in SCOPUS for example), although much of that is focused on the negative aspects of such developments (e.g., [25]).

It is important to note that each of the motivations identified in Figure 2 above have tended to remain present as an influence on tourism visitation, although several have diminished in relative importance over time. It would be wrong, for example, to imagine that the curiosity element has disappeared, and, for better or worse, it is likely to remain a factor in explaining why some tourists want to visit indigenous peoples. The lure of the “perceived exotic” is powerful and present in many forms of tourism and particularly strong where the exotic is becoming increasingly easy to access [12] and no longer threatening in the way it may have been perceived in the nineteenth century when the first major contacts were made in a tourism context between visitors and indigenous communities.

4. Control of Economic Development

The issue of control is of key significance. For the past three decades or so, indigenous tourism has frequently been paired with the concept of sustainable tourism. Whitford and Ruhanen’s [4] paper is found in a special issue of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism on indigenous tourism, for example, and their first “question” on the future direction of indigenous tourism was “what constitutes sustainable Indigenous tourism”. This focus in the tourism literature reflects both an underestimation and a misinterpretation of the capacity and potential scope of indigenous tourism to go beyond the traditional image of indigenous involvement when such a broader involvement is desired by indigenous communities. The focus on sustainability is understandable given the perceived and marketed interaction between the concept and the promoted traditional indigenous links to nature and the environment, but such a mindset limits the perception and scale of indigenous tourism (see for example Fennell [28] for an alternative viewpoint on indigenous stewardship and ecotourism) and perhaps explains a relative lack of focus in research on power and control of other forms of economic development in this context. Conventional thinking on sustainability is that is based on three legs or pillars, economic, environmental, and social–cultural, which is somewhat misleading, as there is a very powerful fourth element, namely politics, expressed in power or control [29]. This is certainly not to argue for the concept of political sustainability but to emphasise that if there is no political or power support for development, however strong the case by the other three elements may be, then development will not take place. Thus development has to have the support of the controlling powers in any particular situation, and in the case of indigenous tourism, this has rarely been the indigenous population that would be involved, meaning new arrangements and approaches are needed [30].

Tourism is in some ways quite different from other forms of development. The consumer, the tourist, has to visit the location to participate, rather than having a product brought to him/her. This means that whoever controls the means of access, for example, can intervene and create and control or prevent tourism development. Control over tourism involves much more than control over hotels and casinos, or trails and museums, it includes controls over transportation services, over planning permissions, over investment capital, over resource rights and over ownership of lands and waters. It can also involve international aspects such as visas, border controls and international treaties and relations, and also access to the world wide web and travel companies who arrange to bring tourists into a region. Discussion of these linkages and interactions is often absent in tourism research on indigenous tourism development. The focus is primarily on the local community, often at the expense of downplaying external influences and power relations that can create conflicting situations and preferences. Indigenous communities may have the ability to promote and support desired development but such development itself is dependent on support from a range of normally external stakeholders. Even where an intended development may be small, it will be dependent on tourists already being in the area or being able to access the area to be able to visit that development. Development cannot exist in isolation, there are many linkages with other activities. Carr [14] is one of only a few authors arguing for the importance of such factors as “mentoring of businesses (to ensure operators develop essential business management skills).”

It can be seen that research on indigenous tourism to date has shown a number of characteristics. There was a rapid and major rise in the publication of such research over the past two decades in particular, and an increasing proportion of this research was conducted by indigenous peoples as authors and co-authors [4]. The nature of the topics under investigation has shifted, reflecting the motivations of both tourists and proponents of tourism development, from visitors coming to gaze at what was called “the exotic” for a variety of reasons, to the ways in which non-indigenous stakeholders have begun to utilize tourism, both for personal and for corporate economic gain. Studies on economic development to assist in the growth of indigenous communities have appeared (e.g., [30,31,32]) but mostly examining what might be called “traditional” forms of indigenous tourism [33,34], McBain [35] is one exception to that pattern, focusing on linkages between tourism and other economic sectors). Many of those papers were case studies of community-based traditional development [36,37,38], followed by studies examining the conditions and implications of increasing involvement of indigenous peoples themselves in tourism. More recently, studies have appeared examining how indigenous peoples might take control of tourism development on their lands and waters [39,40]. In that context, the emergence and use of tourism as an agent in empowerment was noted and tourism development is now being used in discussions over self-determination, indigenous rights and national identity.

5. Topics and Focus of Research: Future Possibilities

One of the key areas of research in this area should be to predict the future implications of development in terms of timing, scale, rate of impact, and areas and people likely to be affected. All such variables will alter depending on the type of tourism being proposed or anticipated. It is appropriate to note that the vast bulk of tourism in the world is what is known, sometimes derogatorily, as mass tourism. It is unrealistic to imagine all tourists visiting indigenous communities will be sensitive, culturally informed, sustainably-minded individuals who will behave appropriately and create few problems and be prepared to accept only limited facilities and services. Even ecotourists have impacts and their views often contrast with those indigenous communities over things such as resource extraction and use, and methods used [13,41]. To assume that indigenous tourism will always be of the sustainable and traditional form is wrong, however desired it may be. Support in principle for sustainable development ideals in tourism may be strong, but few tourists actually adopt such practices in reality [42]. Most tourists will remain unsustainable, their travel will nearly always involve non-renewable energy, certainly in the short term, especially to often relatively remote indigenous communities, and their tastes, preferences and expectations will likely remain closer to mass tourism than to sustainable tourism in practice. Development has to meet that market, and how to fit a potentially possibly square peg (a tourist) into a round hole (indigenous tourism) is a vital topic for future research and in the interests of both groups, and one that has been mostly ignored. The overwhelming assumption has been that indigenous tourism will automatically be sustainable, and in most cases, small scale, and closely related to traditional activities and skills. Such a viewpoint can be argued to be a continuation of the patriarchal approach towards indigenous peoples that has dominated the interaction between the indigenous and the colonial cultures since they first came into contact with each other. This attitude may well help to explain the avoidance in many papers discussing indigenous tourism development of the need for consideration of business and management approaches and viewpoints, the use of conventional economic models and the importance of linkages with not only national but international markets. This is most certainly not to argue for a wholesale or even partial abandonment of sustainable development principles, nor to argue that indigenous peoples should abandon their cultural values and traditional ways of operating, but if economic development of tourism by indigenous peoples is to be successful in terms of benefits to those communities and to remain operating over the long term, then a greater degree of research on, and application of, a broader outlook and attitude towards multiple forms of tourism development is needed. Non-traditional forms of tourism and related economic development such as gambling have “a range of far-reaching negative social and economic consequences for Indigenous population groups. However, an understanding of participation by Indigenous people in contemporary gambling is still undeveloped and is dominated by western concepts. The cultural distinctiveness and complexity of Indigenous Australia create profound conceptual and methodological difficulties with the potential to distort the research process and outcomes, as well as policy solutions” ([27], p. 397). At the root of this problem is the difficulty of counter-balancing the economic benefits resulting from indigenous ownership and operation of such developments for indigenous communities with the social and cultural problems resulting from participation in gambling by members of the indigenous communities themselves.

The relations between tourists and indigenous peoples are complex ones, not only because of the great variety of forms that tourism can take but also because indigenous communities, like most communities, are unlikely to be unanimous and completely in agreement about what they want from tourism, if they want it at all [43]. As Matelski and Street ([25], p. 21) note “In fact, entrepreneurial ventures and wealth among tribes are as diverse as the tribes themselves. Unlike one-source business models (i.e., casinos), for example, many indigenous activists favor a diversified economic plan, making the most of federal and state laws and grants as well as a volatile political and financial climate to best serve their people.” Thus tourism development, even when initiated and controlled by indigenous peoples, is still likely to be of concern to, and provoke opposition from, members of the indigenous population involved. Having tourists enter a community, however well-intentioned and appropriately dressed and behaved they may be, represents an intrusion by outsiders and that fact alone can and does upset people in almost every community. While many people are prepared to accept a measure of inconvenience and disruption of their normal way of life, others, particularly those who receive no direct benefit from tourism, such as employment or a market for their products and services, may well regard such intrusion as undesirable. There are varying responses amongst destination communities towards tourism, in some cases as tourist numbers increase, so do negative attitudes towards tourism and tourists, while an alternative argument is that it is not numbers but changes in the nature of activities and wider spatial and longer temporal patterns of visitation that are of concern. Other studies show residents can distinguish clearly between tourism and tourists [44], the former often being more acceptable as it may be seen to bring improvements in transportation and other services to the community, while tourists may be seen to bring garbage, pollution, rises in costs, congestion, and competition for space and services. To say the situation is complex is hardly surprising or new, it is clear that attitudes of residents of tourist destinations can and do change over time, not necessarily in a uniform or consistent direction, but rather reflect changes in both tourism and the community itself.

Any attitudes that are researched before tourism is established will likely change over time as tourism also changes. How attitudes change because of contact with tourism through development is something else relatively little studied, even in the context of indigenous tourism. For example, is it the amount of contact between the two groups, or the type of contact, or the frequency of contact, or, most likely, a combination of all aspects of contact and its physical and mental manifestations that results in changes in attitudes towards tourism? Any change and the reasons for such change warrant further investigation and make this is a fertile area and a need for future research, research which is best carried out by, or in conjunction with, indigenous researchers.

What is happening currently in many indigenous populations is that decisions over economic development such as tourism have to be made as a response, and by adjustment, to developments that have occurred as a result of decisions made outside their local area and outside the control of the communities affected. This has put indigenous communities in a reactive position, having to respond to external developments, for example of transportation, and having to decide to participate or not, with the realization that development of some kind is likely to occur anyway. More research needs to be carried out before any development or extension of access or other elements begins, on what the timing and scale of likely impacts of any planned or desired development are likely to be on the indigenous populations involved [44]. When decisions are made externally on the development of services such as transport, indigenous involvement is often peripheral at best. Scrutiny of decision-making processes themselves, locally, regionally and nationally, and the power structures involved deserve more attention by researchers in tourism to determine where true control really lies [45].

6. Discussion

As knowledge about tourism and its effects became more accurate and detailed, the more complex relationships that exist between tourism and its associated development and indigenous communities can be identified. There has been a growth in research on how indigenous communities could become involved in tourism for purposes of economic development and employment, and subsequently on the difficulties and problems such a step involves. A matrix used in Tourism and Indigenous Peoples [18] (Figure 3) placed the focus on control and the theme involved in indigenous tourism. It can be argued that there has been a trend from Culture Dispossessed (low indigenous control with an indigenous theme) to Culture Controlled (an indigenous theme with a high indigenous level of control) and to Diversified Indigenous (high indigenous control but without an indigenous theme). It is important to re-emphasise as well, the considerable and growing involvement in what was termed Non-Indigenous Tourism, where indigenous control was low and there was no indigenous theme, as represented, for example, in some casino developments and other forms of mass tourism on indigenous land, which potentially offers considerable basic employment for indigenous peoples that would otherwise be absent. Emphasis has also shifted to social and cultural responses to involvement in tourism, including changes in behaviour, such as modification of cultural practices and products for sale to tourists, and ways in which indigenous communities could shield themselves from the more intrusive aspects of tourism. As noted, there has been increasing interest in the politics and power aspects of indigenous involvement with tourism [45]. This discussion includes who controls tourism and its entry into indigenous communities and areas under indigenous control, what indigenous communities feel its role should be in their homelands, and most importantly, who decides on the nature, rate and level of development of tourism in such situations. The inclusion of tourism in discussions relating to indigenous rights and nationalism represents perhaps the latest area of academic discussion [37]. As with all aspects of development, control and power lie at the heart of the rationale for and the effects of development and change on all communities.

Comments on academic research made earlier note that traditionally much research has been performed by researchers for their own purposes. Some have participated with such groups in gathering data, formulating hypotheses and deducing implications and suggested actions, reflecting an increasing interest in the use of local indigenous knowledge in forms of economic development such as tourism [46]. Such research in the future should include a wider range of potential economic development that could be used by indigenous peoples should they so desire. This last point is critical, the decision on what level, what type and what rate of economic development should take place, if any at all, should clearly be made by the indigenous communities involved rather than by external agencies, public or private. To argue otherwise is to revert to the worse patriarchal forms of colonialism where economic development was dominated by the benefits which accrue to external stakeholders, sometimes in conflict with the wishes of the local inhabitants. Excluding considering or not offering a full range of potential forms of economic development is inappropriate and implies that only certain, externally approved types of development should be promoted and allowed for indigenous populations. Research on and for indigenous peoples with respect to tourism has an obligation to be comprehensive and not pre-ordained by external views on sustainability, ecotourism, or other concepts, and must allow the indigenous populations to be involved from the very beginning of any proposals for development. Where such research involves indigenous peoples, acquiring and using their knowledge [47] in the research also creates an obligation to produce results that could be of value to the indigenous community. This may mean that the results have to be written and presented in forms that are useful to those communities and not just to an academic audience in line with academic paradigms. Incorporating indigenous scholars in collaborative research studies is one essential step in producing more relevant and useful results.

7. Conclusions

Whitford and Ruhanen ([4], p. 1091) concluded their paper with some powerful statements, including “primary consideration at all times should be how and what do (Indigenous Peoples) want from Indigenous tourism”, and that research “should be guided by Indigenous peoples and cultures…-and not the academy”. Those sentiments are still pertinent and deserve emphasis. It can be argued that too much tourism research on issues relating to indigenous tourism, particularly in the past, was carried out with little knowledge or experience of tourism and as a result, conclusions were drawn that could not be defended in the current era. The impacts caused by tourism are complex as well as indirect, and spatially and temporally variable. Things blamed on tourism and benefits ascribed to tourism development can be misplaced and misinterpreted. Impacts can take a long time to appear, some are incidental, and some appear only in other locations, thus extensive knowledge of tourism itself and what its development means is vitally important if appropriate conclusions are to be drawn about its effects, positive and negative, on indigenous peoples.

The general future for indigenous tourism is likely to be positive, both in the level of engagement and hopefully, in indigenous control and management over such development. The increasing involvement of indigenous people in research is certain to bring with it not only a greater representation of indigenous views but also increasing recognition for those viewpoints. This is particularly important with respect to the portrayal of indigenous communities and their culture, a major problem in earlier times when the representation of indigenous peoples was incorrect and often unethical, as well as disrespectful in many ways. More research and knowledge are needed in making the move from “Being observed by the Other” to “Actively engaging with the Other” to “Sharing with and Exploiting the Other” (Figure 4), and ensuring this move is as easy as possible for communities involved. The shift from being taken advantage of through tourism to appropriately taking advantage through tourism requires more research on the full range and appropriate forms of tourism as viewed by indigenous communities and how their specific goals and preferences can be achieved. Among these goals are achieving greater equity and equality, as well as much greater control over the nature and scale of all developments. Such research inevitably means shared participatory efforts led by indigenous knowledge and wishes.