Despite the obvious interlocks between urban risks and tourism development, academic research in this arena has been limited (Siakwah et al., 2020), with urban tourism in many southern African cities seeming largely invisible to the scholarly gaze (Visser, 2019). An understanding of current and future trends in sustainable tourism is thus critical, and it has to be complemented with an appraisal of urban risks (Musavengane et al., 2020). Some of the urban risks that pose challenges to urban tourism development (and as understood in this book) include population pressures, inadequate social services, (in)security, xeno phobia, limited economic opportunities and inequalities, crime, environmen tal challenges, governance and strained resources (Dodman et al., 2017; Falt, 2016; Smith, 2001). The United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11, "making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable," partly informs this book to interrogate the relationship between urban risk and tourism development in SSA. The manner in which a region or space is perceived is of major importance to its success or failure as a tourist destination (Becken et al., 2017). Therefore, this book aims to assess challenges pertaining to sustainable urban tourism in SSA and how its urban spaces could potentially become more resilient in the face of urban risk; this includes build ing resilient, inclusive cities. Although understandings about urban resilience are ambiguous, they are generally viewed as a means to increase the ability of urban systems to prevent varied range of shocks and stressors (Nop & Thorn ton, 2019), and thereby withstand and recover from unexpected urban risks through proper urban planning and management (Asian Development Bank, 2013). The foundations of tourism resilience lie in the acknowledgement that the social and environmental issues are an intertwined, social-ecological entity and that tourism resilience complements sustainability, with the urban tourism environment continually experiencing change (Cheer & Lew, 2017). In SSA, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present some form of an integrated development approach (albeit challenged) to risk management, vulnerability reduction and poverty eradication (Fraser et al., 2017) and thereby aim to pro mote urban resilience. Sustainable urban tourism has the potential to mitigate urban poverty and urbanisation-related risks (Musavengane et al., 2020; Rog erson, 2002; Rogerson & Visser, 2007; Robinson, 2006). Fraser et al. (2017) highlight the multiple ways in which risk and urban development coevolve in Africa by broadening the understanding of the nature, scale and distribution of urban risks, and examine relationships between daily activities and disaster risks across scales. Nevertheless, little seems to be known about the relation ship between urban risk, tourism and resilience, and it is not clear what fac tors contribute to, or hinder inclusive and sustainable tourism in African cities. Understanding the link between urban risk and tourism can help mitigate the negative effects of urban risks pertaining to tourism operations through good governance practices (Musavengane et al., 2020).
There are various ways that urban risks can negatively impact urban tourism development. For example, urban risks can manifest in the form of exclusionary development practices, where the poor are ejected from urban spaces, with no provision of basic social services for the development of hotels and facilities for tourism promotion (Siakwah et al., 2020). Satterthwaite (2017) noted how urbanisation in SSA is underpinned by rapid population growth without the nec essary governance structures to meet responsibilities and manage change. These challenges in urban settings negatively affect tourism development (UN-Habitat, 2016) through unjustifed displacement or limited investments in spaces, which the poor previously occupied. Falt (2016) posited that the displacement of the urban poor through forced eviction is underpinned by multiple rationalities such as neoliberal market-oriented policies and the social desire for clean and beauti ful surroundings. Urban revanchism elucidates how urban politics are driven by market-logics and anti-poor attitudes, and aesthetics construct and reconstruct (new) patterns of socio-spatial segregation globally (Falt, 2016, p. 466; Smith, 2001). Leonard (2018) observed that neoliberalism has not necessarily been eco nomically successful but has actually increased inequality. Thus, market-driven and social desires that are not developmentally sensitive to diverse interests and groups can lead to exclusionary outcomes.
Linked to governance, some urban areas in Africa are facing infrastructural crises with negative implications, where a substantial proportion of the popu lace live in those areas (Satterthwaite, 2017). Simiyu et al. (2019) highlight the importance of social services provisions in reducing urban risks in informal set tlements in Kenya. Urban infrastructure defcit, partly driven by exclusionary neoliberal policies, poses risk to sustainable tourism development (Musavengane et al., 2020). In Zimbabwe, infrastructure such as roads, drainage and hospitals are dilapidated and pose a threat to sustainable tourism development (Man jengwa et al., 2016). Thus, following Goldman (2011) and Watson (2014), Falt (2016) postulates that a spatial rationality based on land speculation is rife in the urban spaces. Spatial rationality highlights socially produced knowledge bases that emphasise (1) the benefts of spatial order; (2) the links between the phys ical environment, human well-being and morality; and (3) different strategies for development of the ‘social whole’ (Falt, 2016:483). These points, driven by neoliberal policies, can lead to artifcial increases in land prizes and exclusion of the poor from urban spaces for tourism promotion. Land speculation and dispos session drive speculative urbanism, and this captures shifts in urban governance, where it has become a core government business to create world-tourism cities (Goldman, 2011, Watson, 2009). In Bangalore, India, Goldman (2011) reported shifts in urban governance where speculation in land values have forced the poor from those lands that are later developed into hotels and other uses for tourism promotion (Falt, 2016).
Urban inequalities and unemployment are urban risks that pose challenges to urban tourism development. Excluding the poor in tourism development poses a risk to tourism itself, as local residents do not gain from the economic benefts derived from tourism or participate in tourism activities to increase its proftabil ity. Poverty can be a driver of crime, and crime, in whatever form, is a risk to tour ism development (Allen, 1999; Boakye, 2012; Holcomb & Pizam, 2006; Levantis & Gani, 2000), with security an imperative determinant of a destination’s attrac tiveness (Sonmez & Graefe, 1998). Neoliberal tourism development in the urban space exhibits exclusionary tendencies that drive the urban poor into poverty and social vices. Neoliberal economic policy has led to a speedy growth of tourism activities in its numerous magnitudes, and these activities are often in opposition to the interests of the wider social benefts (Pavlovic & Knezevic, 2017). These types of neoliberal tourism strategies often perceive the urban poor and their informal activities as incompatible with neoliberal goals of increasing proft.
These strategies were implemented for the African Cup of Nations in Ghana in 2008 and the World Cup in South Africa in 2010, when some poor spaces were cleared to improve the areas for tourists. These urban tourism development strat egies resulted in evictions, restrictions and the relocation of poorer urban groups that did not economically beneft from the events in favour of powerful actors (Lindell et al., 2010). In South Africa, transitioning to democracy has therefore not assisted in addressing many of the urban risks’ challenges experienced by vulnerable citizens who are exposed to inequalities and unemployment due to the state’s neoliberal policy agenda (Leonard, 2017). Instead, the neoliberal states’ engagement in macroeconomic policies has increased urban risks for vulnerable citizens, excluded from decision-making (thus, resulting in poor housing, unem ployment, crime, xenophobia and a lack of water, waste and sanitation facilities) (McKinley & Veriava, 2004).
Similarly, Manjengwa et al. (2016) stated that economic crisis, unemployment and urban poverty is prevalent in African countries such as Zimbabwe due to economic turmoil, which is driven by structural adjustment and propelled by political sanctions. Poverty manifests in the form of urban slums, limited access to productive assets, poor health, poor education and poor social capital capac ity (Chronic Poverty Research Centre [CPRC], 2005). Urban unemployment and poverty are risks to tourism promotion as the poor, especially the youth, can be lured into crimes that can also make the tourism destinations unattractive. The poor also have no resources to spend on domestic tourism promotion. Thus, tour ism development can be a product of the neoliberal phase of the development of modern capitalism (Lindell et al., 2010). Nonetheless, unbridled neoliberalism, that is not inclusive will also undo tourism promotion.
Environmental challenges (for example, climate change causing extreme heat or fooding, waste and air pollution, and industrial risks such as explosions) infu ence a destination image and risk perceptions, and thus, shape tourism develop ment. Depietri and McPhearson (2019) observe how climate change, in terms of heatwaves and fooding, are affecting urban spaces and increasing urban risks. Ecological challenges such as fooding and the destruction of historical sites are risks to urban tourism development. For instance, Accra, Ghana, which had a population of 4.3 million people in 2016, is faced with challenges, including fooding (Atanga, 2016; Songsore et al., 2009). The expansion of cities and the population implies that wetlands and watercourses are converted into residential land use, while open drains are flled with waste that disrupts the fow of water and thus causes waterborne diseases (Atanga, 2016).
Urban centres can be incubators for new epidemics, and zoonotic diseases can spread rapidly and become global threats (Neiderud, 2015), as witnessed with the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) in the central city of Wuhan, China, which has had implications for local, national and global tourism (Lee, 2020). Environmental and societal changes also tend to increase urban risks, such as the loss of shorelines and heritage sites (Addo et al., 2008), and these have negative implica tions for tourism development, for example, in coastal urban cities (Becken et al., 2017). This is evident in the instance of the Castles (Cape Coast and Elmina) and Forts along the coast of Ghana, which are under threat from climate change and human activities (Siakwah, 2018). Urban industrial emissions and transport pol lution can also have implications for urban tourism due to the air pollution they create. For example, Becken et al. (2017) observed that inbound tourist arrivals, especially from the West into China, have been declining in recent years, possibly in response to increasing levels of urban air pollution. Cognitive and affective destination image and cognitive and affective risk perceptions infuence tourists’ intentions to visit a specifc destination. While China’s cognitive image attributes are generally perceived as positive, potential travellers express negative views about travel risks in China, with a specifc emphasis on air quality.
In order to understand the link between urban risk, tourism and resilience, it is important to explore how the tourism feld has developed. Tourism is naively regarded as a ‘new’ phenomena by some tourist researchers and readers (Leigh, 2013). This can be attributed to a lack of historical analysis of tourism devel opment by researchers within this feld (Butler, 2015). Walton (2005: 6) noted that "a problem in tourism studies has been a prevailing present-mindedness and superfciality, refusing deep, grounded or sustained historical analysis". Early tourism research was more aligned with development and planning issues (Saari nen et al., 2017) and geography. It can be traced to the 17th century, where it was more prevalent in Europe and North America (Carlson, 1980; Wolfe, 1964). Being aligned to development and planning issues, the tourism research topics that dominated included land use, destination or location issues and the tourism economy (Duffeld, 1984; Joerg, 1935; Jones, 1933). A focus on urban tourism was necessitated by the need to have seaside health resorts. Most notable are the Romans, some two millennia ago, as they developed an interest in pleasure resorts, including spas and seaside communities (Patmore, 1968; Graburn, 1995).