GeoJournal 60: 283–299, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

283

The developmental impacts of backpacker tourism in South Africa

Gustav VisserDepartment of Geography, University of the Free State, P.O.Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa (E-mail:visserge.sci@mail.uovs.ac.za)

Key words: backpacker tourists, development, new tourism, South Africa, tourism

Abstract

South Africa has recorded considerable growth in tourism activity over the past decade. In the light of the vast rangeof economic sectors that gain from tourism development, the national government has instituted a range of incentives andinitiatives to stimulate tourism development, with the expansion of tourism infrastructure aimed at high-end tourists forminga key component of this strategy. Little investment has, however, been made in tourism infrastructure targeting those marketsthat prefer to avoid high-end tourism facilities. In this respect backpacker tourists and their preferred accommodation type,backpacker hostels, are a case in point. Despite backpacker tourism being largely ignored in national tourism developmentinitiatives, backpacker tourism is increasingly popular in South Africa. This paper focuses on the recent proliferation ofbackpacker tourism in this country and seeks to convey the results of the first nation-wide exploration in this regard. Thepaper has two main objectives. Firstly, it seeks to present broad-ranging empirical data concerning this tourist cohort andtheir preferred accommodation type- backpacker hostels – in the South African context. Secondly, it aims to demonstratewhy backpacker tourists and hostels hold much potential for local development initiatives in South Africa. In the light ofthe findings of this study, the paper concludes that the expansion of backpacker tourism to this country might form anappropriate means by which to achieve a range of local development objectives.

Introduction

South Africa has recorded considerable growth in tourismactivity over the past decade. In fact, with more than 6 mil-lion visitors in 2002, the country attracts more internationaltourists than any other African country and, with a 12% an-nual growth rate, has the highest tourism growth rate in theworld (SAT, 2003). In the light of the vast range of economicsectors that gain from tourism development, it is not surpris-ing that the South African government has accorded tourismexpansion a central position in national development initiat-ives. Subsequently, the national government has instituteda range of incentives and initiatives to stimulate tourismdevelopment, with the expansion of tourism infrastructureforming a key component of this strategy (Rogerson, 2002a).In response, public, private and corporate assistance andinvestment have led to a proliferation of mass tourism pro-jects such as guest houses, hotels, lodges, tourist routesand casino developments (Seif, 2000). Little investment has,however, been made in tourism infrastructure targeting thoseinternational tourism markets that prefer to avoid these typesof facilities. In this respect, backpacker tourists and theirpreferred accommodation type, backpacker hostels, are acase in point.

Backpacking is becoming increasingly popular amongcertain categories of tourists, leading to wide-ranging eco-nomic, social, cultural and environmental development im-pacts in those regions they visit (see, for example, Hampton,

1998; Scheyvens, 2002). These impacts have been shownto correlate closely to personal characteristics that define aperson as a backpacker tourist. Although backpackers havebeen described in many ways, Hampton (1998, p. 641) re-ports that these tourists are generally seen as independenttourists who survive on under $15 per day, use local trans-port, carry all their belongings on their back, bargain forgoods and services while guarding against over-charging,avoid crowds and discover new places. Similarly, Scheyvens(2002) suggests that the term ‘backpacker’ in Australia, NewZealand and south and south-east Asia is widely used bythe tourism industry, participants themselves, and host com-munities as a description of predominantly young, budgettourists on extended vacations or working holidays. Thus,taken as a whole, backpacker tourists as a sub-sector ofinternational budget tourism are perhaps best described astourists with characteristics that include communication net-works; a demand for cheap accommodation; and a paral-lel structure of transport, restaurants, and support services(Hampton, 1998).

In many ways these characteristics explain why the po-tential contribution of backpacking to tourism developmenthas remained frustrated, both in South Africa and furtherafield. Indeed, the lack of interest in backpackers as a tour-ist cohort can largely be ascribed to government planners’view that the targeting of the more conventional mass for-eign tourism sectors is the best strategy for rapid economic

284

and social development. As a consequence, the backpackersector is at best tacitly ignored, or at worst actively dis-couraged by tourism planning officials. This paper focuseson the recent proliferation of backpacker tourism in SouthAfrica and seeks to convey the results of the first nation-wide exploration in this regard. The paper has two mainobjectives. Firstly, it seeks to present broad-ranging empir-ical data concerning this tourist cohort and their preferredaccommodation type – backpacker hostels – in the SouthAfrican context. Secondly, it aims to demonstrate why back-packer tourists and hostels hold much potential for localdevelopment initiatives in South Africa. These concerns areexplored in five sections.

The first section outlines the different data sources em-ployed in this investigation. Drawing on international ex-periences, the second section provides a backdrop as towhy the investigation of backpacker tourists and backpackerhostels is important to tourism-led development. The focusthen turns to the South African situation, with the thirdsection briefly describing the spatio-temporal developmentof backpacker establishments locally. In the fourth sectionan analysis is provided of backpacker hostels as economicunits and in the fifth, the backpacker as a tourist type isinvestigated. The final section considers the impact of back-packers and backpacker hostels on a larger canvas, focusingin particular on their contribution to local development.

Study methodology

The paper draws on data from three different surveys. Thefirst consists of a questionnaire survey conducted amongbackpacker hostel owners in September 2002. Using a num-ber of printed and web-based sources, 118 backpacker es-tablishments were identified in South Africa at that time.1

Through telephone interviews, all hostels were contacted,with 36 (30%) being willing to participate in the survey. Per-sonal interviews with various tourism experts supplementedthe questionnaire data and augmented the insights gleanedfrom the literature regarding tourism and tourist accom-modation, including backpackers and their potential localeconomic development impacts. The second data source isa questionnaire survey covering 56 individual items admin-istered in the coastal provinces, as well as Gauteng andMpumalanga from mid-November to the end of December2002. In total, 249 in-depth, intercept interviews were com-pleted. It must be pointed out that the statistical samplingmethod is not perfect and the focus of the research is ex-ploratory in nature. Indeed, sampling was quite difficult, asthe precise dimensions of the universum are unknown. Inthe light thereof it was decided to take a 0.1% sample ofthe estimated 211,000 backpackers visiting the country ac-cording to South African Tourism (SAT, 2002). Therefore, aminimum of 210 questionnaires had to be completed acrossthe country to ensure statistical significance. Since 249 ques-tionnaires were completed, we are confident that our resultshold statistical merit. These data sets have been supple-mented by a third survey, consisting of basic ‘visitor-book’

information donated by BTSA-KZN. Of the 770 question-naires of the latter survey, 550 were usable. On the wholethe data sources cover basic questions concerning the type oftourists visiting backpacker hostels in South Africa, focusingon all manner of personal attributes, travel patterns, activitypreferences and the like. In this respect this is a first withinthe South African academic analysis of the backpacker phe-nomenon. Before addressing these results, however, someremarks concerning the broader significance of backpackertourism to South Africa need to be considered.

‘New tourism’, economic development and backpackertourists

The South African Tourism White Paper (1996) hasprovided the policy framework for tourism developmentand identified a number of constraints facing the industryand its potential to achieve such objectives as job cre-ation, black economic empowerment and small, mediumand micro-enterprise development, with a view to local eco-nomic development (Seif, 2000). The White Paper, alongwith a number of policy commentators, points out that ifthe full potential of South Africa’s tourism industry is to berealised, and if South Africa is to maximise its comparat-ive advantage as an eco- and cultural tourism destination,then mechanisms must be found to enable community-basedand other structurally disadvantaged tourism enterprises toprofit meaningfully from international and domestic marketopportunities. However, despite government and tourism in-dustry claims, the bulk of public and corporate assistance tocommunity-based enterprises has focussed on mass tourism,supply-side projects such as guest houses, lodges, touristroutes, cultural villages and the like. This in turn would ap-pear to have limited the impact of tourism as a tool towardsachieving local economic development that benefits the mostmarginalised in South Africa (see Rogerson, 2001a).

Although a rich international literature has developed onthe linkages between tourism and economic development,little South African-based research has focused explicitlyon tourism as a development strategy. Recently, however,there has been an upsurge in the exploration of the linkagesbetween tourism and development strategies, with Roger-son (2001a, b, c, 2002a, b, c) taking the lead in a series ofinvestigations into what might be termed tourism-led localeconomic development strategies. Rogerson (2002a, p. 144)notes that since 1994 national government has launchedseveral initiatives to promote or support economic develop-ment across South Africa through tourism. It is suggestedthat, beyond campaigns for marketing South Africa to in-ternational tourists, the most notable of these include thelaunching of the Spatial Development Initiative programmeand the first steps towards a South African developmentframework for tourism, which identifies a set of tourismdevelopment areas linked to defined clusters of opportunity(Rogerson, 2001a, p. 144; also see Rogerson, 2001a, for anextensive discussion). Alongside of these nationally driveninitiatives for linking tourism and development, however,there are a number of similar local-level initiatives, involving

285

interventions focussing on the development of poor blackcommunities (Rogerson, 2001b).

The recent debates on smaller-scale tourism-led localeconomic development must be considered against the back-drop of a number of studies that have demonstrated that theso-called mainstream tourism model of the 1950s to 1970shas many negative impacts. The mainstream model of tour-ism development is dominated by large capitalist enterprisesthat operate according to the dictates of market competitionand technological efficiency (Rogerson, 2001a). As has beenwitnessed in several developing world regions, these tourismprojects often find their spatial expression in enclave tour-ism resort developments (Telfer, 2002). The internationalliterature abounds with examples suggesting that the over-all experience of this tourism model as beneficial to localeconomic development has been limited (for extensive dis-cussion see Sharpley and Telfer, 2002). In addition, suchdevelopments exhibit a range of negative social, culturaland environmental outcomes (Hashimoto, 2002; Southgateand Sharpley, 2002). In the light thereof, several scholarsand policy developers have aimed to outline tourism-leddevelopment strategies that draw upon a ‘new tourism’ or‘alternative tourism’ model. Rogerson (2001a, p. 125) re-ports that the notion of ‘new tourism/alternative tourism’is based on observed changes in the preference of interna-tional tourists away from mass packaged forms of tourism.It is suggested that key features of this new type of tour-ism include a shift away from mass tourism to individual orsmaller-group travel, and from packaged tour programmesto more flexible travel options. Moreover, the focus of thesetourism engagements is shifting from the so-called sun, seaand sand attractions to new forms of tourism involving trav-elling, trekking, and trucking experiences. In addition, thisform of tourism is associated with a shift away from ‘tin-sel and junk’ towards a search for more real, natural andauthentic forms of tourism or travel experience (Rogerson,2001a).

Rogerson (2001a, pp. 124–126) argues that the keyreason for the current interest in alternative tourism, particu-larly by government and development agencies, is found in anumber of positive environmental, economic, social and cul-tural impacts associated with new tourism, not least in termsof tourism-led local economic development. Firstly, altern-ative tourism is thought to consist of small-scale dispersaland low-density developments often located in and organ-ised by villages or communities, where it is hoped that moremeaningful interaction will be fostered between tourists andlocal residents, with less social and cultural disruption thanin the case of tourism enclave developments. Secondly, own-ership patterns in alternative tourism are weighted towardslocal, often family-owned, relatively small-scale businesses,rather than foreign-owned tourism capital. It is argued thatby stressing small-scale local ownership, alternative tour-ism, at least theoretically, increases the local multiplier andspread effects within communities. Thirdly, alternative tour-ism encourages community participation in planning andseeks to strengthen institutions designed to enhance localparticipation and give priority to local needs and enterprises.

Fourthly, alternative tourism emphasises sustainability, bothin an environmental and cultural sense. Thus, by encour-aging a respect for local cultures, it also offers many smallentrepreneurial opportunities through the selling of localculture. These potentially positive tourism-led economic de-velopment impacts are directly relevant to backpackers andbackpacker hostels, since they constitute a key componentof the alternative tourism sector.

With the notable exceptions of Hampton (1998),Richards and Wilson (2004) Scheyvens (2002), Spreitshofer(1998) and Wilson (1997), few tourism researchers haveexplicitly examined the ways in which backpackers con-tribute to local economic development in the global South.However, these studies, along with some investigations inAustralia and New Zealand (for example, Gibbons andSelvarajah, 1994; Haigh, 1995), demonstrate that back-packer tourism can facilitate the achievement of local eco-nomic and non-economic development objectives in severalways. The following provides a general outline of some ofthe most important contributions.

As outlined in the introduction, a key argument un-derpinning many Southern governments’ reluctance to pro-mote backpacker tourism is the perception that backpackers’budget-conscious spending behaviour translates into theirbringing little revenue to the destination region. A numberof studies have, however, challenged this perception. Forinstance, recent research in Australia (TNT Magazine andStudent Uni Travel, 2002), confirming a range of earlierstudies, found that owing to the longer duration of their stay,international backpackers actually spend more money thanany other tourist category. In Australia, backpackers stay forbetween six and twelve months; thus in 2000/2001 the aver-age mount spent per backpacker was A$ 7 380, as opposed tothe A$ 2 123 of all international visitors. Furthermore, noteBaskin (1995) and Scheyvens (2002), backpackers spreadtheir spending over a wider geographic area, bringing be-nefits to remote and otherwise marginalised regions whereinternational mass tourists rarely venture. In the Australiancase it was found that more than half of backpackers visitedat least three states, whereas general international touriststend to explore only Sydney and its immediate hinterland.Similar patterns have been noted in Indonesia, Malaysiaand Thailand. In turn, the length and spatial scope of back-packers’ engagement with the tourism destination hold manyimpacts for a region’s economy.

Hampton (1998), along with Goodwin (1999) andWheeler (1999), suggests that backpackers can contributesignificantly towards local economic development becausethey generally purchase locally produced goods and ser-vices, whereas the more structured nature of package tourslimits contact with local people. In part, their contact withlocal economies is a function of the spatial scale of back-packer engagement with a tourism region and an interest inmeeting ‘the locals’ and adopting more flexible travel sched-ules (Hampton, 1998). These contacts range from using thelocal bus service, to refuelling stops whilst trekking throughisolated regions, to the buying of provisions, the consump-tion of locally produced fruits and vegetables or cooked

286

meals, and visits to the local bar. Such contacts can also in-clude activities involving participation in everyday activitiessuch as learning craft skills (as is the case in Zimbabwe),drum-making or learning to fish (Scheyvens, 2002).

An important contribution to local economic develop-ment occurs through the consumption of a range of goodsand services. Since backpacker tourists seldom insist onWestern or Westernised goods, unlike mass internationaltourists, there are generally far lower levels of economicleakage from the backpacker segment than any other touristtype. Indeed, as Riley (1988, p. 323) remarked in his ground-breaking analysis of budget tourists, ‘backpackers are notso concerned about amenities (e.g. plumbing), restaurants(e.g. Westernised food), and transportation (e.g. air condi-tioning) geared specifically to the tastes of the mass tourist.If a budget traveller place has an appeal to Western tastes(e.g. banana pancakes), it requires minimal infrastructure.’

The minimal importance accorded to infrastructure iswitnessed in many different contexts and service types in-cluding ‘beach shacks’ selling food and drink to backpackersin Goa, families renting out rooms in their homes to back-packers, as in Bali, or homestays in Cape Town townshipsand villages along the Wild Coast. The combination of costcontainment and the adventuresome nature ascribed to back-packer tourists, thus holds broad-ranging opportunities forlocal economies. Firstly, the entrepreneur can utilise existingskills and activities to generate income, with backpackersenhancing the demand for local goods. Hampton (1998),for example, writes that backpacker bungalows in easternIndonesia are built of local bamboo and concrete blocksmanufactured in the village, and furnished with locally pro-duced furniture. Secondly, since these services and functionsalready exist, little capital needs to be invested in income-generating activities. Thirdly, the spread of economic be-nefits within communities may be greater when catering totourists on a budget, as more community members particip-ate through a range of existing economic linkages that focuson the local economy. Ashley and Roe (1998) found that in-formal sector activities associated with tourism in Namibia,including the sale of fuelwood and vegetables to backpackercampers, offered a valuable means of enhancing the liveli-hoods of the poorest groups in society. Individuals did notneed capital, a broad range of skills, or a good command ofa foreign language to participate successfully in the tourismindustry in this way. It has also been found that women,often excluded from formal economic activities, are morelikely to operate informal tourism enterprises by selling han-dicrafts, operating food stalls, or working as beach vendors.Moreover, catering to backpackers does not usually requireany formal qualifications; rather, community members candevelop skills on the job and augment their existing skills.

The development of backpacker accommodation alsochallenges foreign domination of tourism enterprises withinthe global South. In this respect it is instructive to drawon the research of Scheyvens (2002) and Hampton (1998)at length. It has been demonstrated that there is a globaleconomic concentration of wealth in tourism, with the pack-age tourism market being dominated by a small number

of key players with advanced forward and backward link-ages controlling aspects of the international tourism system.Indeed, as O’Connor (2000) demonstrated, in the UnitedKingdom four companies control 90% of outbound chartercapacity. Significantly, these companies not only own touroperators in Britain and abroad; they also own hotels, self-catering accommodation, airlines, cruise ships and retailchains. Hampton (1998) argues that, by supporting smallerplayers in the tourism system, backpackers pose a threat tosuch corporate domination and enhance local economic de-velopment. This concern is highlighted by Wilson (1997),who maintains that the growing emphasis on luxury tourismdevelopment in Goa, which has traditionally been charac-terised by small family businesses, may undermine localeconomic development. It is suggested that the focus onupmarket tourism poses the danger that control over thissector of the tourism industry could pass out of indigenoushands into the ownership of multinationals, who might beless sensitive to local socio-cultural and environmental is-sues. Hampton (1998) and Scheyvens (2002) suggest thatwhen communities control their own tourism enterprises, asis more common where they provide for the budget sector,they are in a better position to participate in local tour-ism enterprises through which wider development goals andthe well-being of their people can be promoted. Indeed,‘given the political will to constrain the larger players, back-packer tourism could increase local participation in realdevelopment, (and be) part of a more sustainable long-termstrategy which attempts to balance local economic develop-ment needs against powerful interests wishing to build largeinternational tourism resorts’ (Hampton, 1998, p. 655).

In the light of the foregoing, there is clear evidencethat backpackers provide many potential benefits for localdevelopment. The question is whether these benefits arematerialising in the South African backpacker industry.

The spatio-temporal development of the backpackerindustry in South Africa

Currently, there is no published research on backpacker tour-ism in the local context, although Courtney-Clark (2001)conducted an exploratory study in Cape Town. In termsof the national scale, particularly with regard to back-packer tourism and local development, no studies appearto have been conducted locally. This can be attributed tothe youthfulness of this tourism sector in South Africa.Indeed, backpacker establishments appear to be the mostrecent tourism accommodation type to have emerged in theSouth African tourism accommodation system. Whereas thelate 1980s and 1990s can be seen as a period of large-scale guest house expansion (Visser and Van Huyssteen,1999), the late 1990s appear to have been the period dur-ing which backpacker hostel development began in earnest.The first backpacker establishments started in a number ofmetropolitan locations, but also in deep rural areas such asFouriesburg (Rustler’s Valley), from the late 1980s. It isclear that initially these hostels made a very hesitant entry

287

onto the tourist accommodation scene, with the real take-off only occurring in the late 1990s. Backpacker hostelsappear to have found a niche in the tourism accommod-ation market left vacant by the nature of developments inthe country’s hotel and guest house industries. In particular,the under-servicing of the lower-cost or budget accommod-ation market by hotels and guest houses appears to havebeen the stimulus behind the establishment of this tour-ist accommodation type. Indeed, it is self-evident that thedramatic increase in international tourists to South Africasince the demise of apartheid broadened the range of visitortypes to the country, with more budget-conscious and in-dependent tourists inevitably comprising part of this influx.Consequently, their presence has stimulated a demand forappropriate accommodation such as backpacker hostels.

There are currently 118 backpacker hostels registeredwith the nine provincial tourism boards in South Africa. Thelargest proportion of backpacker establishments is found inSouth Africa’s main tourist destination region: the WesternCape Province (Figure 1). The province accounts for no lessthan a third of these establishment, with Cape Town hosting29% of all backpackers nationally and 46% of the provin-cial total. The two coastal provinces of the Eastern Capeand KwaZulu-Natal account for a further 60%, and Gauteng14%. At the national level, the distribution of backpackerestablishments broadly reflects the overall distribution of themain South African tourism product. In addition, concentra-tions of backpacker hostels are found along the main touristroute of the Garden Route. The most surprising aspect ofthis distribution is the under-representation of the importanttourism region of Mpumalanga Province.

At the regional level the spatial distribution of hostels re-flects the overall distribution of tourist accommodation andtourism products in those locations, with hostel concentra-tions found, for example, in the holiday resort towns suchas Hermanus, Mossel Bay, Knysna, Plettenberg Bay andfurther along the coast. At the regional level, however, itis also important to note that at least in part, the geograph-ies of backpacker establishments are structured by factorsother than the tourism resource base. The fact that the back-packer tourists generally follow a specific route or routes,using public rather than private transport, is an importantcontributing factor with regard to the regional distributionof backpacker hostels. A significant development in this re-spect is that backpacker establishments have developed asomewhat dialectical relationship with the ‘Baz Bus’ ser-vice provider. This bus service was specifically designedfor budget travellers, fetching and dropping off tourists atbackpacker hostels or lodges around the country. Unlikeother bus services such as Intercity, Intercape or Greyhound,passengers buy one ticket to their final destination and can‘hop on, hop off’ wherever and as often as they wish with notime limit. Whereas the route was initially developed aroundestablished backpacker concentrations, the very existenceof this bus route has subsequently structured the geographyof backpacker establishments more generally (Malherbe,2002). There are five main return routes from Cape Town toPort Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth to Durban, Durban to Manzini

in Swaziland and Manzini to Johannesburg and Pretoria, aswell as Pretoria to Durban via the Northern Drakensberg,with costs varying from around R 800 for the first leg tonearly R 2000 for the trip from Cape Town to Johannesburg.In considering the distribution of backpacker hostels at theregional level it is noticeable that most of them are locatedalong these routes. Thus, in explaining the regional distribu-tion of backpacker establishments, causality can be ascribedto the main backpacker bus route, particularly since themain growth spurt of backpacker accommodation followsthe establishment of these bus routes.

In considering the spatial distribution of backpackers,it is interesting to note that, as is the case in other in-ternational tourism destinations, backpacker establishmentsare also found in parts of the country that are not gener-ally part of international tourists’ travel routes. Whereasthere are no exceptionally ‘out-of-the-way’ backpacker es-tablishments along the internationally known Garden Route,those in Hogsback, Coffee Bay, Kokstad, Ficksburg andClarens deviate substantially from the well-known ‘interna-tional’ routes. In this respect, the location of backpackerhostels might be conducive to the opening up of new ter-ritory for tourism markets. Lastly, at the micro-scale, thespatial distribution of backpacker hostels is diverse, althoughthere appears to be a tendency for the clustering of hostelsin central parts of the metropolitan regions though outsidethe central business districts themselves. The only appar-ent exception to the general distribution pattern occurs inCape Town, where a number of backpacker hostels arelocated in, or in close proximity to, the central businessdistrict. Taken as a whole, the significance of these partic-ular establishments is that they connect the internationallyknown gateways of Cape Town and Johannesburg, and ‘in-ternationalised’ tourism corridors routes such as the GardenRoute, to regions generally ignored by conventional massinternational tourist flows. Consequently, backpacker tour-ists potentially engage a far larger part of South Africa,spreading their impact further across the country’s spaceeconomy.

The form and function of backpacker hostels in SouthAfrica

Backpacker hostels as physical structures cover a range ofsizes, styles and locations. Thus, a description of the ‘typ-ical’ backpacker hostel is difficult. Indicative of such vari-ance is the fact that, for example, one particular backpackerhostel was established in an old disused school building;others were established in large family homes or old hotels;while others were specifically built for their current purpose.Information concerning the cost of developing the back-packer hostels cannot be seen as reliable, and hence no clearindication can be given of the capital cost of establishing thehostels. The survey did, however, find that nearly 40% of thehostels were properties previously owned for different pur-poses and later converted for their current use. Significantly,however, 60% of the properties were purchased specificallywith their use as backpacker hostels in mind. The cost of

288

Figure 1. The spatial distribution of backpacker hostels in South Africa.

renovating or converting properties for their current purposedid not display any general trend, and ranged from as littleas R10 000 to as much as R400,000. For those propertiesspecifically purchased for use as backpacker hostels, capitalinput ranged from as little as R70,000, to the most frequentlymentioned amount of R500,000 to R600,000, to as much asR700,000. The purchasing price at a very general level didreflect the higher cost of property in major urban centres, asopposed to properties in smaller, deep rural towns.

In most cases it was indicated that the sourcing of build-ing materials and building contractors for conversion orbuilding of the backpacker hostel occurred locally (i.e., inthe immediate area in which the hostel is located). In termsof basic furnishing for the hostels, such as stoves, beds,bed linen, lighting, bathroom tiles and fittings, the situationwas somewhat different. In larger urban centres, all pur-chasing took place mainly at large South African-owned andoperated retail outlets, in the area where the hostels are loc-ated. However, in the smaller towns and hamlets, sourcingof materials was far more complex. A case in point is ahostel in Barkely East that used retail outlets in distantlylocated Bloemfontein, Aliwal North and East London. Thisis also true of hostels in small towns in the Eastern Capeand KwaZulu-Natal, where basic furnishings came from thelarger towns or cities. On the other hand, in terms of dailyrequirements such as foodstuffs and cleaning materials, localretail outlets are seemingly sufficient.

Although there is no direct correlation between touristcapacity and location, the survey suggests that the largerbackpacker establishments are found in the metropolitan re-gions of Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg, with smallerones in the more remote regions. However, there are notableexceptions, with a smaller city such as Bloemfontein havinga hostel accommodating up to 70 tourists, and a hamlet likeClarens offering a hostel providing 40 beds. Although thereis a very large variation in the number of bed spaces avail-able, it was found that on the whole, 56% of backpackerhostels provide between 21 and 40 beds. Nearly all back-packer establishments provide ‘private rooms’, generallywith two bed spaces, and ‘dormitory rooms’ with anythingfrom three to twelve bed spaces. On the whole, two-thirds ofbed spaces are in dormitories, with the remainder in privaterooms. It must be stressed, however, that great variance inthis respect was recorded. Taken together, the total num-ber of available bed spaces for the survey group came to1 384, of which 617 were in ‘private rooms’ and 767 in‘dormitories’. Extending these findings to South Africa asa whole, and assuming that the sample is representative of118 hostels, the total number of bed spaces amounts to atleast 4537.

The different types of accommodation in private roomsand dormitories also hold cost implications. In the case ofprivate rooms, the price per bed space varied significantly,but remained notably cheaper than those in guest houses

289

or budget hotels. Generally the nightly cost of a bed in aprivate room amounted to between R71 and R90 per per-son sharing, with private room rates typically amounting todouble the per-person sharing rate. While private room ratesdisplayed considerable variation, bed spaces in dormitorieswere concentrated in a very narrow price range of betweenR50 and R70 per night. It is noteworthy that not a singlehostel charged more than R70 per night for a dormitory bed,with little variation between hostels in the same location.Aggregating these findings for the sample group, the po-tential capital inflow of backpacker establishments, if fullyoccupied, amounts to a daily earnings total of R89,712, orR32,744,880 annually. Extending these findings to the totalnumber of backpackers in South Africa and assuming thatthe sample is representative, the total potential income canbe estimated at R294,056 per day, or R107,330,440 annually.

The income stream of backpacker hostels is not only de-termined by bed spaces sold, but is augmented by a numberof additional services and functions. As a rule, establish-ments provide bed linen, as well as phone and laundryfacilities. Most offer Internet and fax services, televisionwith satellite or other pay stations, in addition to wide-ranging tourist information services, often including thebooking and/or organising of local excursions. In terms ofthe latter, the survey suggests extensive variations in thetypes of activities on offer, ranging from mountain hiking,to cultural tours, township tours, wine tasting, eco-toursand diving. Many of the hostels provide some form of barservice, while meals are generally available at an additionalcost. In terms of meal provision, it is noticeable that those es-tablishments in deep rural areas generally provide a full mealservice (e.g. breakfast, lunch and dinner), whereas those inmetropolitan regions generally only provide breakfast, or atmost breakfast and dinner. Costs for meals range from R15to R25 for breakfast, to R35 to R40 for dinner. In most casesthe hostel owners in the metropolitan regions prefer gueststo support local eateries and bars.

Backpacker accommodation is maintained by a numberof people. Owing to the exploratory nature of the investiga-tion, the survey did not deal with the personal characteristicsof the hostel entrepreneurs, although it did in fact, aim toestimate the number of people they employ. Firstly, it issignificant that the income generated from the backpackerhostels was the only or main source of income for 72% ofall participants. This is a high proportion of dependencecompared to other non-hotel tourist accommodation types,such as guest houses, where around 45% of owners are notdependent upon the income generated from these businesses(Visser, 1996). The sampled backpacker hostels maintaineda total of 251 permanent staff member, of whom 115 (46%)were male and 136 (54%) female. In terms of the age struc-ture of the labour force, all age ranges between 20 and60 years were recorded. There was, however, a larger con-centration of workers in the lower age ranges (20–40 years).Overall, an average of seven employment opportunities perhostel unit was recorded. If the sample is representative ofthe total backpacker hostel sector, 823 direct employmentopportunities are maintained by this sector. Whereas the

gender division of labour is relatively even, the racial divi-sion of labour is substantially uneven. The ownership basisof the surveyed hostels was exclusively white, whilst thesupport services component was mainly non-white. It wasfound that the managerial positions were mainly filled bywhite men and women. The more menial positions involvingcleaning, cooking, gardening and maintenance were filled byblack or coloured men and women. No direct informationwas obtained concerning the dimensions of the wage bill.However, owners indicated that salaries and wages consti-tuted between 25 and 40% of their operating costs. Althoughthere was generally a correlation between establishment sizeand the number of people employed by the backpackerhostel, there is a tendency towards higher employment ratesrelative to size at those hostels in more rural regions. Thiswould seem to reflect differences in wage demands betweenurban and rural areas.

Backpacker tourists in South Africa

The general tourists seeking accommodation at a backpackerhostel are primarily from Western Europe. They are well-travelled long-haul tourists who have on average, undertakenthree long-haul visits in the past three years. In terms ofnationality, 29% are from Germany, 22% from the UnitedKingdom and 12% from the Netherlands (see Table 1).Although nationality breakdown in the main reflects theproportions recorded for overseas tourists to South Africagenerally, it is noteworthy that Germany tourists are dis-proportionately represented in the backpacker survey (SAT,2002). This discrepancy can be explained in two ways.Firstly, a third of all British tourists to South Africa are VFRtourists (Rule, 2003) and hence do not have to engage thelocal tourist accommodation sector in the same way as otheroverseas tourists. Secondly, South Africa is a popular budgettravel destination for the German tourist market specifically(SAT, 2002).

With the exception of 2% of the respondents, who werevisiting South Africa as volunteers in a range of exchangeprogrammes, all the respondents were visiting South Africafor leisure purposes. For 71% of these tourists this wastheir first visit to South Africa, although as many as 14%had visited the country more than four times before. Thisfigure is significantly higher than the figure for average leis-ure tourists to the country, with between 50% and 60% ofoverseas leisure visitors usually being first-time visitors toSouth Africa (SAT, 2002). However, the youthfulness ofbackpackers largely explains this difference.

Backpacker tourists in South Africa are generally youngmen (52%) and women (48%), with 38% in the 21–25 yearsage bracket and 26% in the 26–30 years age range. Moresignificantly, 88% of all backpacker tourists are youngerthan 35. This is markedly youthful in view of the fact thatonly 45% of the general international tourists to South Africafall within this age range. Whereas backpackers are oftenportrayed as students, 65% of the sample group were infull-time employment, with only 26% being full-time stu-dents. Since no fewer than 53% of respondents worked in

290

Table 1. General descriptive data of backpacker tourists

Age <21 21–25 26–30 31–35 36–40 >40

10% 38% 26% 14% 2% 10%

Gender Male Female

52% 48%

Education Complete Some Tertiary Completed Tertiary Trade Some Post- Completed

Secondary Education Tertiary Qualification graduate Post-graduate

School 19% Qualification 9% Studies Studies

20% 34% 8% 10%

Occupation Professions Self-employed Skilled Full-time Volunteer Unemployed

53% 3% Artisan Student Services 7%

9% 26% 2%

Gap Year Yes No

7% 93%

Travel R0–R5 000 R5 001–R10 R10 001–R15 R15 000–R20 R20 001–R25 >R25 000

allowance 17% 000 001 000 000 11%

32% 22% 10% 8%

length of <15 days 15–21 days 22–30 days 31–45 days 46–60 days >60 days

stay in 9% 15% 21% 13% 9% 33%

South AfricaTravel Alone One other Groups more

partner 33% 42% than two

14%

Primary Exiting variety Friends and Competitively

motivation of things to do family priced

for travel in 56% recommended destination

South Africa South Africa 10%

13%

Previous First visit Second visit Third visit Fourth of more

visits to 46% 30% 12% visit

South Africa 12%

the service industries, as lawyers, doctors, nurses, teachers,IT specialists and accountants, the respondents were welleducated, 61% having completed at least their first degreeor a tertiary level diploma. Whereas in the past backpackerswere regarded as unemployed drifters, it is noteworthy thatonly 7% were temporarily unemployed, mainly as a resultof their decision to take a gap year, whether directly afterschool, or university, or after the first phases of their career.Moreover, 7% of the respondents indicated that they weretaking a gap year from their normal commitments.

Given the differences in the occupational status of thesetourists, the length of stay in South Africa varied signific-antly, with 36% of the respondents visiting South Africafor two weeks to a month. However, it is significant that29% stayed for longer than three months. Perhaps most in-teresting was the fact that there is no relationship betweenthe length of stay of tourists taking a gap year and that ofothers in full-time employment. What is significant is that55% of all respondents stayed in South Africa for more than30 days, which is three times the average length of stayfor leisure tourists to South Africa, who generally visit for11 days (SAT, 2002).

For the group as a whole, 33% of the respondents trav-elled alone, 42% with one other person, who was eithera friend, spouse or romantic partner and 14% in groups

numbering more than two. For those travelling alone, themain motivation for doing so was independence, or prac-tical considerations such as the fact that they had no choicebecause no-one they knew wanted to travel with them toSouth Africa. For those who travelled together, the mainreason was cost-sharing and companionship. It was inter-esting that only 2% cited personal safety as a reason fortravelling with others. In contrast to general perceptions ofthe unsafe nature of South African society, it is gratifyingto note that these backpackers did not regard this as a keyconcern. This finding contrasts sharply with those of George(2003) who recently reported that 20% of overseas visitors tothe Western Cape Province (which is deemed to be the safestof the South African tourism regions) were unsure whetherthey would recommend that region as a safe place to visit.

The travel behaviour of backpacker tourists is not onlyframed by their demographic profile, travel partnerships andtime-budgets, but also their available financial resources. Inthis respect international experience suggests that both timeand money are of importance when studying backpackertourists. Nearly half of all respondents had an overall budgetof R10 000 or less to spend in South Africa, followed by22% with between R10,001 and R15,000, and 10% withbetween R15,001 and R20,000. These budgets excludedtravel costs to South Africa and any associated health or

291

Table 2. Backpackers’ daily expenses by category

Spending item Rands

Accommodation 72

Restaurant 50

Self-catering 20

Take-away 20

Bar/Tavern 50

Night-clubbing 75

General tourism activities 25

Souvenirs 30

other types of insurance. Perhaps of key importance is thefact that these tourists have budgets that are comparable tothose of almost all other categories of leisure travellers toSouth Africa. However, the difference arises in the mannerof spending and the period of time during which spendingoccurs.

On the whole there are eight key spending areas for back-packer tourists if travel costs are not considered in the travelbudgets (Table 2). On average backpacker tourists spend ap-proximately R342 a day. This is significantly less than theaverage mass overseas tourist’s R 1000–1400 daily expendit-ure (cf. Saayman and Saayman, 2003). It must be stressed,however, that this is an aggregate amount, as the survey re-vealed that some of the respondents spend significantly lessor more than this average. Nevertheless, when the averagespending pattern is compared with the total budget of thesetourists and their average length of stay, this result seems tobe correct.

Unlike general tourists who spend the greatest proportionof their holiday budget on accommodation costs, backpack-ers keep these costs to a minimum. Indeed, most backpack-ers allocate R72 daily, on average. This is largely madepossible by the basic nature of their accommodation require-ments. Indeed, for nearly all respondents, these requirementsamounted to a clean dormitory bed space, clean bathrooms, awell-appointed self-catering kitchen and friendly staff. Pop-ular extras included a bar, pool table and laundry, as well asInternet connectedness. Furthermore, the low accommoda-tion costs are also attributable to the very limited variationin bed-space prices among backpacker hostels. Moreover,accommodation costs were retained at low levels owing tothe fact that 88% of respondents only used backpacker hostelaccommodation during their travels in South Africa.

The largest proportion of the backpacker’s daily allow-ance is spent on food. Whereas respondents support a rangeof local restaurants and take-away eateries, many of theseare international or national franchised outlets such as KFC,McDonald’s, Nando’s and Steers. Those who prefer to pre-pare their own food support mainstream supermarket chainssuch as Shoprite, Pick ’n Pay and Woolworths. Althoughmany (52%) respondents indicated that they supported in-formal traders in the regions they visited, practically nonedid so when buying food. Another large proportion of thetotal budget is allocated to night-time entertainment, with

Table 3. Backpacker activities in South Africa

Activity Percentage participation

Abseiling 20

Adventure challenge 18

Bungee jumping 19

Cultural villages 35

Fishing 8

Game viewing 69

Hiking 72

Historical sites 54

Horse riding 7

Jet skiing 7

Kloofing 10

Mountain biking 33

Mountaineering 13

Natural sites 71

Night clubbing 61

River rafting 1

Scuba diving 27

Shark viewing 27

Skydiving 19

Surfing 36

Township tours 44

Visiting museums 53

Wind surfing 6

Wine tours 45

aggregate spending on night-club and bar/tavern recreationgenerally amounting to around R75 and R50, respectively.This spending pattern clearly reflects the youthfulness ofthe backpacker tourists and holds a number of implicationsin terms of the impact these tourists might have on localeconomies. Given the rather modest budget allocation forgeneral touristic spending (R30), the question arises as towhat this money is spent on. Table 3 provides a breakdownof the activities in which backpacker tourists engage.

The international literature is not clear on the preciseactivities in which backpackers engage in particular regions,mainly because the geographic specificity of visited areasultimately determine activities. Nevertheless, it is implicitly,if not explicitly, suggested that these tourists are active,adventure-seeking and more interested than other touristsin the social and cultural diversity of those regions throughwhich they travel. Indeed, they seek out authentic exper-iences whether nature-based, social or cultural. Prior toanalysing these activities, it must be pointed out that thenumber and range of activities engaged in, varied signific-antly among the respondents. Some visited South Africaexclusively to participate in water sports such as surfing orscuba-diving; others, to engage in typical mass tourist activ-ities. Nevertheless, for most, their visit to South Africa wasframed by the expectation of finding a range of diverse nat-ural environments. It was interesting that the experience ofcultural difference was seldom mentioned as a motivationfor visiting South Africa. This is also clearly reflected in thetypes of activities in which these tourists engaged.

292

Backpackers are primarily involved in ‘nature-based’activities, with hiking, viewing of natural sites and gameviewing high on their list. On the whole, these activitiesare either free of charge or relatively affordable. However,considering that part of the anticipated nature experienceincluded seeing ‘wildlife’, it was notable that many back-packers pointed out that the cost of ‘game-viewing’ wasexorbitant, which meant that they could not participate inthis activity. Interesting, too, is the high level of participa-tion in urban activities, primarily night-clubbing. Althoughthe level of interest in cultural village and township toursseems rather low, it is probably higher than that of most othertourist segments. It is also clear that there is a significantinterest in adrenaline-pumping activities such as mountainbiking, shark viewing, abseiling and bungee jumping. Therespondents’ interest in these activities should not be con-sidered surprising given their primary reason for visitingSouth Africa. This diversity is also highlighted by most asbeing the country’s single most important feature that theyhave enjoyed most. An interesting finding was that there wasno relationship between the total budget for the visit to SouthAfrica and the range of activities engaged in. Taken together,however, these tourists were impressed with the ‘value formoney’ South Africa afforded them, and singled this out asan incentive for visiting the country and for considering areturn visit.

What is noticeable from the interview material is the lackof real engagement with the whole of South African soci-ety. It is often argued that backpacker tourists are culturallysensitive and actively seek out those places and aspects ofa society generally found at the fringes of the host society(Scheyvens, 2002). Few respondents indicated a particularcultural or social expectation. This is reflected by the factthat only a relatively small number of backpackers either hadvisited or were planning to visit a cultural village or go ona township tour. Indeed, some interesting views were ex-pressed concerning these activities. Most backpackers werenot interested in engaging in such ‘cultural’ experiences.

Despite the range of activities engaged in, it is importantto note that these activity programmes nevertheless reflectthe general tourism resource base of the areas visited. If awell-known destination such as Cape Town is used as an ex-ample, it is clear that the main part of backpackers’ itineraryechoes that of the standard international tourists. The mostpopular programmes included Table Mountain, whether forhiking or using the cable car; a visit to Green Market Square;Cape Point; Robben Island; the Castle; a wine tour, and to alesser extent, township tours. Likewise, in destinations indeep rural areas, such as Coffee Bay on the Wild Coast,activities are limited to hiking, drinking in the bar, or par-ticipation in hostel-organised adventure activities such asabseiling. In terms of the backpackers’ smallest spendingitem, these tourists differ significantly from mass tourists.Of the respondents, 68% had not bought any souvenirs at thetime of the interview and 51% indicated that they probablywould not do so later. For those who had bought or wereplanning to buy souvenirs, jewellery and ‘ethnic art/craft’were seen as most desirable. Other popular purchases were

clothing and books. However, these tourists differ fromstandard overseas tourists in the scale of their engagementwith the destination region. Thus, the issue is not so muchhow many activities backpackers engage in, nor necessar-ily the types of activities, but rather the fact that so manydifferent destinations are visited.

The single most important characteristic distinguishingbackpacker tourists in South Africa from any other touristsegment is the spatial scope of their travels. As indicatedearlier, most of the backpacker tourists come from Europe.When considering the countries from which they enteredSouth Africa, however, a pattern emerges that reveals afar more interesting aspect concerning these tourists’ travelbehaviour. Of note is that 10% of backpackers had vis-ited Namibia immediately prior to entering South Africa.Moreover, a further 10% of the respondents had visitedSouth Africa’s other neighbouring states before travellingthrough South Africa. Considering that very few of therespondents are nationals of these countries, this suggeststhat these travellers are not only visiting South Africa, butare engaged in a tour programme that involves the broadersouthern African region. Furthermore, it is interesting tonote that 7% had visited Australia before arriving in SouthAfrica, which would suggest that this country forms partof a larger travel route. Indeed, Figure 2 illustrates thisto be the case. This observation is given further impetusby the fact that the most popular destination following thebackpackers’ visit to South Africa is Australia, with the des-tinations following their visit to Australia including mostlyNew Zealand, but also a range of south-east Asian coun-tries (Figure 3). Moreover, a number of southern Africancountries also feature – intimating that backpacker tourists’visits are integrated with a larger, regional, travel experience.South Africa is thus part of a backpacker route that startsoff in the United Kingdom, traverses the southern Africanregion and then goes on to Australia and New Zealand andsouth-east Asia. Backpackers mainly enter South Africathrough Johannesburg (47%) or Cape Town (33%) Interna-tional Airport. Furthermore, those visiting the neighbouringstates enter overland.

At the intra-regional scale, mirroring Australasian exper-iences, for example, backpacker tourists not only travel forlonger periods than those from the same tourist-generatingregion, but also visit more parts of a host region. In thisrespect backpacker tourists in South Africa are no different.As seen in Table 3 and reflected in Figure 4, the spatialspread of backpackers across the provinces is far higherthan that of average overseas tourists. Indeed, higher visit-ation was evident in nearly all provinces, suggesting greatermovement of backpacker tourists across South Africa. Thesignificance here is that these tourists travel through numer-ous regions which general mass tourists would seldom visitduring one visit to the country. For example, it is significantthat the Western Cape is not the only focus of their travelsthrough South Africa, but that the less visited provincesof the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga fig-ure prominently on their tour itineraries. In particular, the

293

Figure 2. Backpackers’ entry points to South Africa.

Figure 3. Spatial pattern of backpacker tourists upon leaving South Africa.

294

Figure 4. Spatial pattern of backpacker tourists inside South Africa.

Table 4. Backpacker visitation by province

Percentage visiting province Average leisure Backpacker

tourists tourists

Eastern Cape 12 46

Free State 11 10

Gauteng 48 56

KwaZulu-Natal 19 60

Limpopo 6 1

Mpumalanga 21 38

North West 8 1

Northern Cape 6 8

Western Cape 35 87

movement of backpackers through the poor and generally‘dangerous’ Transkei, is noteworthy.

Whereas the overall length of their visit to South Africa islonger and the spatial spread thereof greater than in the caseof conventional tourists, the average length of stay at indi-vidual locations is relatively short (Table 5). The survey datasuggest that there is a range of routes taken by backpackertourists, the most popular of which is the so-called coast-to-coast route that generally starts in Cape Town, meandersacross the Garden Route, and the Wild Coast and then onto Durban or the Drakensberg, and terminates in Johannes-

burg. The reverse sequence is also popular. A typical touritinerary would constitute 7 days in the Cape Town region,1–2 days in the Hermanus area, one week along the GardenRoute, 3 days in Jeffrey’s Bay, Port Elizabeth or East Lon-don, 3 days along the Wild Coast, 3 days visiting the NatalSouth Coast and Durban or 2–3 days in the Drakensberg,then a trip through either Zululand, or Swaziland, or to Jo-hannesburg, with a return trip to the Kruger National Parklasting between 3 and 7 days (Malherbe, 2002). Generally,this means that the typical backpacker spends approximately30 days in South Africa, which is three times the averagelength of stay for a mass international tourist (Visser, 1996).

Considering the spatial scope of backpackers’ travelsthrough South Africa, it is not surprising that they useseveral different modes of transport. Although their mostpopular mode of transportation is the special backpackerbus service, Baz Bus (Table 6), a range of other modes oftransport are also used.

The local development impacts of backpacker tourism

Drawing on the survey results reported here, backpackertourists and their preferred accommodation type, backpackerhostels, exhibit a number of potentially positive and negativecharacteristics in terms of their actual and potential impactson local development. These are discussed in turn below.

295

Table 5. Average length of stay at selected destinations

Location Number of days

Cape Town 7

KwaZulu-Natal Midlands 5

Kruger National Park 4

Montagu 3

Hogsback 3

Coffee Bay 3

Port St Johns 3

Durban 3

Northern Drakenberg 3

Stellenbosch 2

Hermanus 2

Mossel Bay 2

Wilderness 2

Knysna 2

Plettenberg Bay 2

Jeffery’s Bay 2

Port Elizabeth 2

Oudtshoorn 2

East London 2

Pietermaritzburg 2

Nelspruit 2

Johannesburg 2

Bloemfontein 2

Clarens 2

Paarl/Franschhoek 1

West Coast 1

George 1

Beaufort West 1

Graaff Reinette 1

Rhodes 1

Port Edward 1

Dullstroom 1

Pretoria 1

Ficksburg 1

Gariep River 1

Positive characteristics of backpacker tourism in terms oflocal development

Firstly, it is argued internationally that, although large-scaletourism maximises gross annual foreign exchange earningsper room, the foreign exchange requirements for the con-struction and operating costs of large hotels create largeimport leakages. In comparison, smaller-scale developmentssuch as backpacker hostels, have virtually no such foreignexchange requirements. Therefore, import leakages are min-imal. Moreover, owing to the rather basic nature of thepurchases required for the establishment and maintenanceof backpacker hostels, it is very likely locally manufacturedgoods, sold through South African-owned retail outlets, willbe used.

Secondly, internationally, backpacker contribute towardsthe spreading of foreign exchange earnings across largerareas than general international mass tourists because ofthe spatial range of the typical ‘backpackers’ routes’. This

Table 6. Backpacker tourists’ modes of transportation

Mode of Transport %

Domestic airline 26

Inter-city bus 40

Train 18

Rental vehicle 54

Mini bus taxi 39

Baz Bus 47

Private vehcile 29

Unspecified other 2

also appears to be true in the South African context, withbackpacker routes including regions distant from the inter-national tourism routes and gateways. Although the spatialscope of South African backpackers could be more wide-spread, the existence of backpacker hostels in more isolatedregions generates at least some investment where therewould have been none. Moreover, the development of atourist route in unknown territory can also serve as a wayto ‘open up’ the South African tourism periphery to inter-national mass tourism, providing opportunities for furtherforeign exchange earnings in the region.

Thirdly, regarding investment, the low entry costs andminimal capital requirements (relative to guest house orhotel investment) for smaller-scale tourism allow greaterlocal participation. The extraordinary cost of hotel and, in-creasingly, guest house development and operation, meansthat ownership of such facilities is mainly concentrated inthe hands of a few multinational corporations or highly cred-itworthy individuals. In terms of backpacker hostels, it ispossible for South African entrepreneurs, with far fewer re-sources, to participate in the tourism system as owners ofbusinesses. Whilst the ownership of backpacker hostels islocal, this sector is currently white-owned and -managed.None of the surveyed backpacker hostels, whether locatedin an urban or rural area, was black-owned. In this re-spect, this accommodation type is not as yet proving tobe a key sector in providing opportunities for black tour-ism entrepreneurs. However, this sector does seem to havesome potential for such SMME development in future. Nev-ertheless, backpacker hostels employ a number of blackpeople, and are thus familiarising workers with the conceptof tourism, which they probably would not have encounteredotherwise.

Fourthly, backpacker tourists require simply construc-ted accommodation, rather than large-scale developments,thus allowing far lower levels of capital investment. As thebarriers of entry are lower, more opportunity for emergingentrepreneurs is provided.

Fifthly, although it is recognised that employees in large-scale enterprises generally receive higher average remunera-tion than those in smaller operations, Rodenburg (1980), forexample, argues that the benefits are highly concentrated inthe enclave rather than dispersed throughout the local eco-nomy. Smaller-scale tourism can also succeed with smaller

296

numbers of tourists and may represent the best opportunityfor providing earning potential in the metropolitan hinter-land and peripheral regions. In the South African context,it must be acknowledged that the impact of a backpackerhostel, or even a cluster of hostels in large metropolitanareas, is perhaps not as extensive as that of large hotel re-sorts. However, as highlighted in the survey results, hostelsin major metropolitan areas provide fewer meal services andthus make a contribution to the restaurant and bar activitiesin the immediate areas of the cities in which they are located.In addition, backpacker hostels and backpackers themselvesprovide a certain ambience to the areas in which they arelocated. An example of this impact can be seen in the hostelarea of Long Street in Cape Town. Here the presence of ahigh number of young international tourists provides a keyingredient to the ‘cosmopolitan feel’ of the area in terms ofdifferent eateries, restaurants, bars and nightclub entertain-ment. This in turn impacts on the use of this space by localresidents, who interpret the area to be desirable for social-ising, adding to leisure space development. In turn, suchprocesses of change can also draw mass international touristcohorts. In addition, the presence of international touristsstimulates other economic enterprises such as Internet cafés,website service providers, excursion organisers, as well asclothing and accessory outlets. Moreover, in this locality,the impact is arguably more positive in broader local de-velopment terms in view of the regeneration of a formerlyrun-down and rather ‘sleazy’ area.

Sixthly, it was demonstrated that there are a number ofhostels in the deep rural areas of South Africa. Unemploy-ment rates in these areas are very high, with many peoplehaving to engage in subsistence farming, seasonal farm la-bour or migration to the metropolitan regions to earn a living.Moreover, in many cases these rural communities are totallydependent on social pensions and remittances from distantlylocated family members. Although the presence of a back-packer hostel does not provide a whole community withdirect employment, it does provide at least some opportunityfor residents to engage in the formal economy. Although thepositions filled by these local residents are not highly skilled,these hostels nevertheless provide opportunities within thecontext of the local skills base. In turn, this provides at leastthe possibility of acquiring new skills over time. Backpackerhostel development might thus be a very appropriate routeby which a broader process of re-skilling and engagementwith the tourism system could be introduced into deep ruralareas. In addition, there is the more straightforward infu-sion of wages and salaries into the local economy, whichin turn provides opportunities for the stimulation of furtheremployment and economic activities.

Finally, a number of linkages are facilitated by bothbackpacker tourists and backpacker hostels. The establish-ment of a hostel in itself implies direct once-off investment,but the operation, maintenance, (re)development and pos-sible expansion of this tourist accommodation type imply arange of further economic linkages. For example, the op-eration of these tourist facilities incurs recurrent expensesthrough water, electricity and refuse removal services, the

revenues of which flow to the local authorities. Furthermore,the presence of a hostel generates taxable income, which inturn is incorporated into the revenue system of the country.In addition, these properties form part of local governmentjurisdictions which, in turn, receive taxes and levies fromthese businesses and the wage and salaries bills. Whereasother types of tourist accommodation have similar impacts,it is important to note that backpacker hostels add to thetourist base of far-off destinations where different forms oftourist accommodation would not have been economicallyviable, and broaden the accommodation base where touristaccommodation is in greater supply. Part, if not all, of therevenue from other operating expenses also enters the localeconomy. Linkages are also developed in terms of transport,in this case the Baz Bus service. Overall, it is certainly pos-sible that backpacker expenditure may have different incomemultiplier effects from those of mass tourism, particularlyin view of the lower weekly expenditure of backpackers– which, however, is spread over a longer period and ina more diverse range of geographical settings. Regardedthus, the backpacker tourism sector certainly has implic-ations for local economic development, but only for veryspecific role-players.

Shortcomings of backpacker tourism in terms of localdevelopment

At one level, the results reported here tentatively point to-ward backpacker tourism making a useful contribution to theSouth African tourism economy and local economic devel-opment (LED) in particular. Nevertheless, a range of issuesarise in terms of backpacker tourism’s potential contributionto local economic development, particularly pertaining tothe objective of more racially inclusive LED through tourismdevelopment. Indeed, one might argue that apart from thejob opportunities created for black employees, the prime be-neficiaries of the expansion of backpacker tourism, whetherhostel owners, excursion organisers or the retail sector, havebeen white. More specifically, the following factors can beput forward as demonstrating the limitations of backpackertourism in terms of inclusive, transformative, tourism-ledlocal economic development, particularly in the more re-mote urban areas and rural settlements of the South Africantourism space economy:

Firstly, although the current spatial distribution of back-packer hostels is relatively dispersed, this distribution ishardly comparable to that of backpacker ‘havens’ such asthose found in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. The loc-ation of backpacker hostels still exhibits a high level ofclustering in relatively mature international tourism nodessuch as Cape Town, Johannesburg/Pretoria and Durban.What is perhaps most interesting is that, whereas back-packer tourists are known for their adventurous nature andwillingness to explore the lesser-known aspects and loca-tions of the host society, not a single backpacker hostel isfound in the township areas of the main metropolitan re-gions. In fact, in most cases the intra-urban distribution ofbackpacker hostels is hardly different from that of guesthouse or bed-and-breakfast establishments. In this respect,

297

the poorer communities of the large urban areas have muchopportunity, but seemingly not enough information and (in-stitutional) support, to engage in this economic activity. Thereason for seeing this as a problem is that township areas,apart from their potential interest for adventure-seeking tour-ists, are home to the disadvantaged poor, and therefore tothe communities that current tourism policies supposedlyaim to assist. In addition, the township areas are those thatmost need the development of small, medium and micro-enterprises as part of broader local economic development.The current distribution of backpacker hostels simply doesnot stimulate the development of synergies between spatiallysegregated tourism service providers and those enterprisessupporting their operating needs. Thus, the current intra-urban distribution merely reinforces, rather than challenges,the uneven urban tourism space economy.

Secondly, related to the distribution of backpacker hos-tels in the rural areas, the secondary clusters are establishedalong well-trodden tourist routes, with only a handful intruly ‘unmapped’ regions as regards international tourists.With the exception of a backpacker hostel along the WildCoast, not a single backpacker unit reported sourcing thebasic operating requirements (beyond labour) from the localcommunities. Regarded thus, the existing spatial distributiondoes not allow backpacker hostels or backpackers them-selves to spread these benefits more extensively. Even inthe hostels’ support of regional retail centres such as EastLondon, Bloemfontein, Umtata, etc. capital inflows accrueto the broader South African economy, with the dividends ofsuch linkages being repatriated to the metropolitan regionsand mainly to institutions owned by white capital.

Thirdly, a key current feature of the backpacker hostelsis that they do not exhibit the same diversity in terms ofphysical structure and amenities as that found in backpackerheartlands such as Thailand and Indonesia. In this respect,the entry level in terms of capital requirements is muchhigher than is necessary. A feature of backpacker hostelsin many other regions is that the accommodation structuresare often made of inexpensive and readily available materi-als. More importantly, these establishments do not draw onWesternised notions of housing design, nor require the asso-ciated building materials. In this respect, the South Africanbackpacker hostel sector seems to be emulating backpackerhostels in regions such as Australia and New Zealand with‘first world’ building designs, rather than using local materi-als and designs. It is also important to realise that in thoseareas where such opportunities are perhaps more readilyavailable, such as the Wild Coast, the KwaZulu-Natal northand south coasts, the resident populations may be unaware ofthe opportunity represented by backpackers, in terms of thetypes of housing designs they might find appealing. In thisrespect, a lack of knowledge of the tourism system might behampering entry to this market.

Fourthly, in the above context it can be argued that theeducation of the local communities is pivotal for the success-ful exploitation of backpacker tourism for local economicdevelopment in South Africa. The human capital of smallurban areas in regions such as the Eastern Cape, northern

KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga, is poor in terms of edu-cational and literacy levels. In this respect there appears tobe a training deficit on the part of government institutions,whether local, provincial or national. In keeping with Ro-gerson’s (2002a, p. 161) conclusion, it can be suggested thatthe basic skills to begin the process of entering the marketas a small, medium or micro-enterprise, are lacking. Neitherthe current backpacker hostel owners nor the surroundingcommunities seem to be aware of the manner in which theycould assist each other in developing and enhancing the ex-perience of backpacker tourists through closer business ties.Moreover, support structures for training emerging tourismentrepreneurs in many of the non-metropolitan areas wherebackpacker hostels are located, are meagre to say the least.

Fifthly, processes of changing and developing productionand consumption behaviour, also require that backpackertourist flows should be relatively reliable and display suf-ficient growth to provide adequate incentives to engage insuch change. In this respect, the survey demonstrated twodistinctive visitor seasons, with relatively high occupancyrates in summer and lower rates in winter, in addition tovariations in the types of visitors involved. Two challengesare of particular importance in turning backpacker tourisminto a sector that can initiate change in such a manner as tosupport local economic development. Firstly it is importantthat tourism flows should be predictable and relatively even.Neither poor urban nor poor rural communities have accessto extensive credit lines and they cannot carry the cost ofseasonal variations in tourist flows. Thus, predictable andrelatively constant volumes of tourists are necessary to makea switch to tourism-related services desirable and to makeany real difference to the livelihoods of these communities.The crucial point to be addressed is the lack of interest in thedomestic tourism market. The fact that backpacker hostelsdo not encourage, and in some cases actively discourage,domestic tourists is, in the view of the author restrictive interms of potential expansion for backpacker hostels and theirrelated activities. Domestic tourists can play a central role inevening out the seasonality of international tourist flows.

Sixthly, it is argued internationally that backpackers’support of informal activities constitutes a key reason whybackpackers are seen as beneficial to the poorer segments ofthe destination region. In general this argument is advancedwith reference to food supply and meal provision, as theseservices are not capital-intensive, provide for both local andoverseas clienteles and are not skills-intensive. The surveydemonstrated that there is a lack of support for informalactivities by backpackers, particularly in terms of buyingfood, whether prepared or not. Similarly, it was recordedthat backpackers, whilst supporting local restaurants and eat-eries, generally supported franchised restaurants and take-away chains, thus supporting locals who, however, weremainly white operators with access to capital. Thus, whilstthe local economy is supported and employment oppor-tunities admittedly generated and maintained through suchconsumption, the poorer sectors of the host communities donot benefit. Self-catering is also an important segment ofbackpacker expenditure. It is generally suggested that back-

298

packers acquire inexpensive produce from local markets andvendors, thus stimulating the local economy. Whereas thesurvey certainly demonstrates the support of local food retailoutlets, these are largely national retail concerns, which areowned by white capital and not by the less well-resourced,whom tourism development in South Africa aims to benefit.

Seventhly, although the adventure activities of backpack-ers certainly lead to engagement of locations less frequentedby the mass tourists, similar issues emerge concerning theownership base of such facilities and services. As far ascould be ascertained during the fieldwork period, not a singleadventure activity provider had a black ownership base. Al-though these activities do provide jobs, the related profitslargely accrue to white entrepreneurs. Similarly, the rangeof transportation modes used by backpackers during theirtravels through South Africa, despite their many positiveimpacts, are mainly white-owned, thus limiting the benefitsto the local economy in terms of previously disadvantagedcommunities.

Finally, a challenge facing the backpacker sector is thatof attaining larger tourist flows. Australia is currently themost important backpacking destination for tourists from theUnited Kingdom (TNT Magazine and Student Uni Travel,2002). The United Kingdom is, however, also South Africa’smain source of international tourists, whether general masstourists or backpackers. The issue for South Africa is thatthe majority of UK backpackers travel the well-beaten back-packer route through Asia, especially Thailand, Singaporeand Hong Kong, then on to Australia. It has been demon-strated that less than five per cent of UK backpackers travelfrom South Africa on to Australia, whereas nearly 40%travel through south-east Asian countries to Australia andmore than 20% fly directly to Australia. The issue for SouthAfrican backpacking businesses is that the south-east Asianroute has been established over many decades and has be-come something of a tradition – a rite of passage - amongUK backpackers. The growth potential of the South Africanbackpacking industry therefore seems to lie in persuadingbackpackers flying directly to Australia to do so via SouthAfrica, or to induce the main flow of backpackers to includeSouth Africa prior to visiting the south-east Asian countries.Similarly, backpacker tourists travelling from Australia andNew Zealand, as well as those from the USA and Canada,could be encouraged to include South Africa as part of aglobal backpacking route. In terms of domestic tourists, thebackbone of most successful tourism destinations, a cru-cial obstacle appears to be the unwillingness of backpackerhostels to welcome local tourists.

Conclusion

The preliminary conclusion drawn from the findings repor-ted here is that backpacker tourism holds potential in termsof its contribution towards local economic development. Thesurvey results reflect a range of development impacts, manywhich demonstrate potentially significant contributions to-wards local tourism-led development objectives. On the

other hand, a number of challenges remain in incorporat-ing the full potential of backpacker tourists and hostels intothe larger South African tourism space economy. The localbackpacker industry is still in its infancy; thus it remains tobe seen in what way and to what extent this sector of tour-ist accommodation providers will contribute towards localdevelopment. On the positive side, it is evident from thesurvey material that the backpacker industry is in a growthphase and is being established, as well as managed, bySouth African entrepreneurs. These hostels are estimated toprovide an average of seven direct employment opportunit-ies per unit, indicating a high rate of employment creation,given the relatively low levels of capital investment. In termsof the spatial distribution of these hostels, and hence ofthe backpacker tourists themselves, many destinations lessfrequently visited by or known to, international tourists areincluded, thus exposing these regions to the potential bene-fits of tourism-led economic development. In this respect,then, backpacker tourists are contributing towards the gen-eration of income and employment in deep rural regions,in addition to potentially aiding the ‘opening up’ of thesedestinations to the mass tourism market and its associatedbenefits.

The central issue, however, is not only that of whetherbackpacker tourism can make a contribution towards tour-ism development generally or local development per se, butalso whether it will assist a form of tourism developmentthat will be beneficial in terms of those communities ingreatest need of developmental forms of tourism, in keepingwith the national government’s vision for tourism expansionin South Africa. Seen against this backdrop, the researchpaints a less optimistic picture, with the main beneficiar-ies of backpacker tourism expansion currently being mainlywhite-owned small, medium and micro-enterprises. In thisrespect it would appear that much needs to be done by boththe backpacker industry and, particularly, local institutionspursuing tourism-led economic development, to inform andeducate the public in respect of the potential benefits thatbackpacker tourism presents to host communities.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Chris Rogerson at the University of theWitwatersrand for initiating interest in backpackers as tour-ist type; Robyn Mellett for administering the questionnaire;David Malherbe for valuable industry insights; two anonym-ous referees for their input on an earlier draft of this paperand the University of Free State Research Committee forfunding part of the research. The usual disclaimers apply.

Endnotes

1This is currently the most comprehensive listing available,but is probably not totally complete as not all hostels areregistered with regional or local tourism authorities.

299

References

Ashley C. and Roe D., 1998: Enhancing community-based tourism devel-opment research. Discussion Paper no. 4., Ministry of Environment andTourism., Windhoek.

Aziz H., 1999: Whose culture is it anyway? In Focus (Spring): 14–15.Baskin J., 1995: Local economic development: tourism – good or bad?

In: Tourism Workshop Proceedings: Small, Medium, Micro-Enterprises,103–116. Johannesburg: Land and Agricultural Policy Centre.

Cleverdon R.G., 2002: Tourism development in the SADC region: theopportunities and challenges. Development Southern Africa 19(1): 7–28.

Courtney-Clarke F., 2001: Economic impacts of backpacker tourism inCape Town. Unpublished Honours Research Report, Department of En-vironmental and Geographical Sciences, University of Cape Town, CapeTown.

George R., 2003: Tourists’ perceptions of safety and security while visitingCape Town. Tourism Management (in press).

Gibbons S.M. and Selvarajah C.T., 1994: A study of the internationalbackpacker visitor to New Zealand: building a profile to assess valueand impact. Department of Management Systems, Massey University,Albany.

Goodwin H., 1999: Backpackers GOOD, package tourists BAD? In Focus(Spring): 12–13.

Haigh R., 1995: Backpackers in Australia. Occasional Paper no. 20. Bureauof Tourism Research, Canberra.

Hampton M.P., 1998: Backpacker tourism and economic development.Annals of Tourism Research 25(3): 639–660.

Hamzah A., 1995: The changing tourist motivation and its implications onthe sustainability of small-scale tourism development in Malaysia. Paperread at World Conference on Sustainable Tourism, Lanzarote, Spain,April 24–29.

Hashimoto A., 2002: Tourism and sociocultural development issues. In:Sharpley R. and Telfer, D.J. (eds), Tourism and development: conceptsand issues. pp. 202–230. Channel View Publishing, Clevedon.

Hutnyk J., 1996: The rumour of Calcutta: tourism, charity and the povertyof representation. Zed Books, London.

Kirsten M. and Rogerson C.M., 2002: Tourism, business linkages and smallenterprise development in South Africa. Development Southern Africa19(1): 61–82.

Little A.M., 1991: The impact of tourism on the environment and the cul-ture of the local population. Paper prepared for the Strategic Workshopfor Transkei Tourism, January, Port St Johns. Occasional Paper no. 69.Institute of Natural Resources, Pietermaritzburg.

Malherbe D., 2002: Personal Communication, 1 October 2002.Mearns K., 2003: Community-based tourism: the key to empowering the

Sankuyo community in Botswana. Africa Insight 34(1/2): 29–32.Noronha F., 1999: Culture shocks. In Focus (Spring): 4–5.O’Connor J., 2000: The big squeeze. In Focus (Summer): 4–5.Republic of South Africa, 1996: White Paper on the development and pro-

motion of tourism in South Africa. Department of Environmental Affairsand Tourism, Pretoria.

Richards G. and Wilson J. 2004: The global nomad: backpacker travel intheory and practice. Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Riley P.J., 1988: Road culture of international long-term budget travellers.Annals of Tourism Research 15: 313–328.

Rodenburg E., 1980: The effects of scale in economic development: tourismin Bali. Annals of Tourism Research 7: 177–196.

Rogerson C.M., 2001a: Tourism and spatial development initiatives: thecase of the Maputo Development Corridor. South African GeographicalJournal 83(2): 124–136.

Rogerson C.M., 2001b: Investment-led entrepreneurship and small enter-prise development in tourism: lessons for SDIs from the internationalexperience. South African Geographical Journal 83(2): 105–114.

Rogerson C.M., 2001c: Spatial development initiatives in Southern Africa:the Maputo Development Corridor. Tijdschrift voor Economische enSociale Geografie 92(4): 324–346.

Rogerson C.M., 2002a: Tourism and local economic development: the caseof the Highlands Meander. Development Southern Africa 19(1): 143–168.

Rogerson C.M., 2002b: Tourism-led local economic development: theSouth African experience. Urban Forum 13(1): 95–119.

Rogerson C.M., 2002c: Urban tourism in the developing world: the case ofJohannesburg. Development Southern Africa 19(1): 169–190.

Rule S., 2003: Visiting friends and family (VFR): South Africa’s mostpopular form of domestic tourism. Africa Insight 33(1/2): 99–107.

Saayman M. and Saayman A., 2003: An economic analysis of internationaland African tourism markets for South Africa. Africa Insight 33(1/2):93–98.

Scheyvens R., 2002: Backpacker tourism and Third World Development.Annals of Tourism Research 29(1): 144–164.

Seif J.A., 2000: Facilitating market access for South Africa’s disadvantagedcommunities and population groups through ‘Fair Trade in Tourism’.IUCN-South Africa and University of Chicago, Chicago.

Sharpley R. and Telfer D.J., 2002: Introduction. In: Sharpley R. and TelferD.J. (eds), Tourism and development: concepts and issues. pp. 1–10.Channel View Publishing, Clevedon.

South African Tourism 2002: South African Tourism Index QuarterlyReport. South African Tourism, Johannesburg.

Southgate C. and Sharpley R., 2002: Tourism, development and the envir-onment. In: Sharpley R. and Telfer D.J. (eds), Tourism and development:concepts and issues. pp. 231–264. Channel View Publishing, Clevedon.

Spreitshofer G., 1998: Backpacking tourism in South-East Asia. Annals ofTourism Research 25(4): 979–983.

Sutcliff W., 1999: Are you experienced? Penguin, London.Telfer D.J., 2002: The evolution of tourism and development theory. In:

Sharpley R. and Telfer D.J. (eds), Tourism and development: conceptsand issues. pp. 35–80. Channel View Publishing, Clevedon.

TNT Magazine and Student Uni Travel, 2002: Backpackers uncovered –April 2002. TNT Magazine, Sydney.

Uriely N., Yonay Y. and Simchai D., 2002: Backpacking experiences: atype and form analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 29(2): 520–538.

Visser G., 1996: The geography of guest houses in the Western CapeProvince. Unpublished M.A.Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellen-bosch.

Visser G. and Van Huyssteen M., 1999: Guest houses: the emergence of anew tourist accommodation type in the South African tourism industry.Tourism and Hospitality Research 1(2): 155–175.

Wheat S., 1995: Interview with a tour guide. The Independent on Sunday(February 12): 50–51.

Wheeler T., 1999: In defence of backpackers. In Focus (Spring): 15–16.Wilson D., 1997: Paradoxes of tourism in Goa. Annals of Tourism Research

24(1): 52–75.