Overview of slum tourism research

Figure 2 illustrates the evolving research landscape of slum tourism. The journey began in 2004 with two seminal papers by Kaplan (2004) and Rogerson (2004). Both delved into Johannesburg’s township tourism, emphasizing tourism’s potential in poverty mitigation and the region’s economic upliftment. Post-2004, the domain attracted escalating scholarly interest, evidenced by a notable publication upswing from 2012 onward.

Two pivotal discursive events in Bristol (2010) and Potsdam (2014) further catalyzed the field’s evolution. Gathering global experts on slum tourism, these events spurred foundational texts that have since informed the discipline. The post-Bristol momentum produced a special Tourism Geographies issue in 2012, curated by Frenzel and Koens. Successive publications, like the “Slum Tourism” special issue of Die Erde 144 (2) in 2013, and the themed “Slum Tourism” issue of Tourism Review International in 2015, further cemented the field’s prominence. Undoubtedly, these seminal conferences and publications have been instrumental in surging scholarly endeavors in slum tourism research.

We conducted a co-citation analysis to pinpoint the leading authors and journals in the realm of slum tourism research. A co-citation refers to the simultaneous citation of two documents (Small, 1973). Such analysis aids scholars in organizing scientific literature and grasping the evolution of specific research domains (Surwase et al. 2011).

Figure 3 illustrates the outcomes of our author co-citation analysis. We established a threshold of 40 citations to identify the most influential authors within our dataset of 4229 authors. Only 11 authors met this threshold, allowing for a focused examination of the core contributors in the field. Their significant scholarly impact is reflected by their extensive citations, with node size in the visualization representing co-citation strength. Rogerson, Frenzel, and Steinbrink emerged as the most frequently cited authors, with the highest link strengths of 3978, 3173, and 2734, respectively. Rogerson’s work delved into the economic ramifications of tourism in South African townships, highlighting the part slum tourism plays in poverty reduction and sustainable community economic growth (Booyens and Rogerson, 2019a, 2019b; Rogerson, 2014). He also discussed urban tourism’s influence on small and medium-sized enterprises (Rogerson, 2004, 2008). In contrast, Frenzel and Steinbrink examined the commercialization of urban informal settlements and the portrayal and appreciation of poverty (Frenzel, 2017; Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015; Steinbrink, 2012, 2013).

Other notable authors in this field include Freire-Medeiros, who discussed the transformation of Brazilian favelas into tourist attractions (Freire-Medeiros et al. 2013; Freire-Medeiros, 2007, 2009, 2011), Koens, who probed the growth of small and medium-sized businesses in South African townships (Koens and Thomas, 2015, 2016) and local perceptions of slum tourism in India (Slikker and Koens, 2015), and Booyens, who primarily focused on responsible tourism in South African townships (Booyens, 2010; Booyens and Rogerson, 2019b, 2018). Rolfes also made a significant contribution by studying the ethical aspects of slum tourism (Burgold and Rolfes, 2013; Rolfes, 2010).

Intriguingly, although not a slum tourism specialist, Urry stands among the eleven most-cited authors. He is renowned for introducing “the tourist gaze” concept (Urry, 1990), suggesting that tourist experiences and choices are more influenced by the tourism industry, societal norms, and cultural factors than by personal autonomy. This theory offers a crucial framework for understanding how poverty is portrayed in slum tourism and the dynamics between tourists and local residents.

Figure 4 presents the map of journal co-citations, illuminating the academic areas focused on the topic of “slum tourism.” A journal co-citation analysis, conducted with a threshold of 40 citations, identified 11 key journals from a pool of 3013 in our dataset, underscoring their central roles in the discourse of the field. Notably, the Annals of Tourism Research occupies a central position on the map with the highest link strength of 2608, highlighting its prominence as the most-cited journal in slum tourism research. These journals are categorized into two primary clusters: tourism studies and geography/urban studies. This categorization reflects the dual scholarly interest in slum tourism, which intertwines travel motivations with the complexities of urban environments. On one hand, tourism researchers probe the allure of these regions, the ensuing cultural interactions, and the ethical debates surrounding poverty as an attraction. Conversely, geography and urban studies scholars explore the spatial structures of informal settlements, underlying socio-economic drivers, and the reciprocal impact between tourism and urban evolution. Collectively, these disciplines provide a nuanced view of slum tourism’s multifaceted nature. Notably, Development Southern Africa does not align strictly with these categories, but as a multidisciplinary journal emphasizing policy and practice in Southern Africa—a hub for modern slum tourism—it garners frequent citations.

After meticulously reviewing the 122 publications, we pinpointed the locations that are focal points for slum tourism research. As presented in Table 1, South Africa, India, and Brazil emerge as the most extensively researched countries in this domain. They are closely followed by Kenya, Mexico, Colombia, Egypt, and Indonesia.

Township tourism in South Africa, deeply rooted in the country’s complex history, is a significant topic in slum tourism research. This form of tourism, which emerged in post-apartheid South Africa (Steinbrink, 2012), focuses on areas historically designated as “black only” zones, where disparities still exist (Iqani, 2016). Originating in Soweto, Johannesburg, it has since spread to other major cities. The 2010 FIFA World Cup, hosted by South Africa, notably boosted its popularity (Marschall, 2013). Today, Cape Town is a key destination for township tourism, with townships like Langa and Khayelitsha attracting tourists due to their historical significance (Rolfes, 2010).

Similar to South Africa, favela tourism in Brazil has political roots. These favelas, initially informal settlements for the formerly enslaved (Iqani, 2016), gained international attention after the 1992 Earth Summit, when delegates visited Rio de Janeiro’s favelas (Frenzel, 2012). Their prominence increased further during the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympics (Steinbrink, 2013). Despite their cultural richness, favelas face challenges like crime and drug trafficking (Freire-Medeiros, 2009). Rio’s favelas, especially Rocinha and Santa Marta, attract numerous tourists each year (Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015).

In India, the scenario of slum tourism is notably different, with Mumbai’s Dharavi, one of the world’s largest informal settlement, being a key focus of India-specific studies. Other informal settlements in cities like Kolkata and Delhi have also attracted scholarly attention (Holst, 2015; Sen, 2008). These informal settlements are characterized by their micro-industries and recycling efforts, showcasing the resilience and entrepreneurial spirit of the residents (Gupta, 2016). Although a relatively new trend compared to its counterparts, India’s slum tourism industry has burgeoned, spawning numerous tour operators (Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015).

Over time, slum tourism has gained traction, spreading to nations across the Global South, including Kenya, Colombia, Mexico, Egypt, and the Philippines. In our study, while most articles were location-specific, ten adopted a holistic approach, discussing the overarching theme of slum tourism.

Prominent areas of slum tourism research

We conducted a keyword co-occurrence analysis on our slum tourism research dataset to identify and visualize the most significant themes by examining the frequency and relationships of keywords. This method facilitated the identification of central research clusters and thematic hotspots within the topic. Figure 5 illustrates the network of keywords that frequently co-occur in slum tourism studies. To refine our data, we consolidated similar keywords, for example, pairing “township” with “townships” and “developing countries” with “developing world.” For this analysis, we set a threshold to include keywords that appeared at least three times, leading to the selection of 44 out of 322 keywords, thereby emphasizing their significance within the field. In the network, each node represents a keyword; larger nodes indicate higher frequencies of occurrence. Our analysis revealed six distinct clusters, each differentiated by a unique color.

The red cluster focuses on “slum tourism,” examining the development of tourism in informal settlements and its wide-ranging socio-economic impacts. This cluster covers aspects such as “branding” and the role of “tour guides,” and emphasizes key socio-economic factors including “residents’ perceptions” and “poverty alleviation.” Simultaneously, the green cluster, highlighting terms such as “township tourism” and “economic development,” shifts focus to the growth of local, often small-to-medium-sized, tourism businesses, particularly spotlighting township tourism in South Africa. Meanwhile, the light blue cluster examines the impact of slum tourism on local communities, with a special focus on “community-based tourism” and favela tourism in Brazil. The yellow cluster delves into the portrayal of poverty as a key draw in slum tourism, questioning its classification as “poverty tourism” and exploring the shift towards more ethical, “pro-poor,” and responsible tourism practices. Concurrently, the purple cluster critically examines the portrayal and perception of poverty in slum tourism, focusing on tourist perspectives influenced by the “tourist gaze” and social media. Lastly, the dark blue cluster analyzes how globalization and rising consumer culture have spurred the growth of slum tourism, integrating themes like “globalization,” “space,” and “consumption,” and underscoring poverty’s central role in this phenomenon.

In our thematic analysis of publications, we integrated clusters with similar themes. The red, green, yellow, and light blue clusters, which focus on the socio-economic impacts of slum tourism on local communities, were merged. The red and dark blue clusters, addressing the transformation of urban informal settlements into tourist destinations and their driving factors, were also combined into a single theme. Furthermore, the purple and yellow clusters, centered on the portrayal and perception of poverty in slum tourism, were grouped together. Our review systematically examines these unified themes, as illustrated in Table 2.

Touristic transformation of urban informal settlements

The transformation of urban informal settlements into tourist destinations has been extensively discussed in earlier literature on slum tourism. This transformation hinges significantly on cultural and historical heritage. As previously mentioned, Brazil’s favelas and South Africa’s townships attracted visitors with political and cultural interests (Frenzel, 2012; Steinbrink, 2012). Gradually, with the globalization that stimulated global mobility and the rise of consumer culture, these locales became spaces of interaction, juxtaposing mobility and immobility on a global scale (Dürr, 2012a). As many informal settlements in the Global South were represented in global media, they gained increasing touristic attention. For instance, after the success of the film “The City of God” in 2003, the number of foreign visitors to favelas in Rio grew significantly (Freire-Medeiros, 2011). As Freire-Medeiros (2009, p. 582) mentioned in another article that tours in these informal settlements “are equally indebted to the phenomenon of circulation and consumption, at a global level, of the favela as a trademark.”

In the touristic transformation of informal settlements, policy plays a pivotal role. For instance, local governments in South Africa actively encouraged township tourism by creating museums, developing historical and political heritage sites, and promoting township upgrading programs (Booyens, 2010; Booyens and Rogerson, 2019b; Marschall, 2013). In Brazil, favela tourism served as a means to enhance its image in the context of preparations for mega-events in Rio, a strategy dubbed “Festifavelasation” (Steinbrink, 2013). South Africa pursued a similar path after securing the 2010 FIFA World Cup (Marschall, 2013). In Colombia, a policy known as “social urbanism” led Medellin, previously known for its drug barons and criminal activities, to undergo social and economic transformation, attracting both interest and tourists (Hernandez‐Garcia, 2013).

In analyzing our dataset’s articles, it is evident that slum tours primarily occur in well-known informal settlements of the Global South, such as Mumbai’s Dharavi, Rio de Janeiro’s Rocinha, and Johannesburg’s Soweto. These locations are preferred due to the factors previously mentioned. However, this growing industry often overlooks numerous lesser-known and more impoverished communities (Koens, 2012). Issues such as insufficient infrastructure, the absence of tourist attractions, and poor security hinder the growth of tourism in informal urban settlements. This situation is clearly seen in areas like Harare, Zimbabwe (Mukoroverwa and Chiutsi, 2018), and certain townships in Durban, South Africa (Chili, 2015).

A significant barrier is also the lack of awareness of pro-poor tourism in these lesser-known areas. Munyanyiwa et al.’s (2014) research in Harare’s townships revealed that many residents were unaware of township tourism, compounded by insufficient infrastructure and community involvement to support it. Moreover, residents were unsure of how to benefit from such initiatives, with historical tourism activities largely unknown to them. Similarly, Attaalla’s (2016) study in Egypt highlighted the minimal awareness of pro-poor tourism, the absence of a comprehensive government policy to develop this tourism type, and the scarcity of specialized Egyptian tour operators and travel agencies in the pro-poor tourism market. For successful tourism in these areas, it’s vital to enhance infrastructure, safety, and offer innovative tourism experiences (Mukoroverwa and Chiutsi, 2018). Additionally, improved information dissemination and increased stakeholder engagement are essential (Munyanyiwa et al. 2014).

The transition of informal settlements into tourist destinations brings several challenges. Notably, the commercialization of these marginalized areas can aestheticize deprivation and social inequality, turning them into themed spaces that reinforce stereotypes and maintain informal settlements as attractions shaped by tourist expectations (e.g. Altamirano, 2022b; Dürr, 2012a). Building on this point, Dürr et al. (2020) highlighted that marketing urban poverty and violence as a city brand could exacerbate existing inequalities. Research also shows that in many touristic informal settlements, local residents often do not fully engage with or benefit from tourism (Koens and Thomas, 2015; Marschall, 2013). Furthermore, public policies aimed at transforming these settlements sometimes lack consistency, creating insecurity among locals (Altamirano, 2022b). Addressing these issues requires enhanced policies and increased community involvement in tourism, posing significant challenges for local governments.

Valorization and representation of urban poverty

In 2010, the term “poverty tourism” was recognized in slum tourism research, casting a spotlight on the intricate connection between poverty and this type of tourism (Rolfes, 2010). This tourism variant is not without controversy, interrogating the confluence of poverty, power, and ethical dilemmas (see Chhabra and Chowdhury, 2012; Korstanje, 2016; Outterson et al. 2011). This dynamic between the commodification of impoverished settlements and their portrayal within the tourism spectrum has ignited fervent academic debate.

Frenzel (2014) critically observed that within the paradigm of slum tourism, poverty transcends its role as a mere backdrop, ascending to the primary spectacle. Consequently, this leads to the commodification of urban impoverishment, turning it into a tourism commodity with tangible monetary value (Rolfes, 2010). Scholars have extensively dissected this juxtaposition. While some examine the framing, representation, and marketing dimensions (Dürr et al. 2020; Meschkank, 2011; Rolfes, 2010), others argued that poverty becomes romanticized, perceived more as a cultural artifact rather than an urgent societal issue (Crossley, 2012; Huysamen et al. 2020; Nisbett, 2017).

In this tapestry, both tourists and tour operators play pivotal roles in framing the narrative. Operators, tapping into the tourists’ quest for the “authenticity” embedded in the narratives of global urbanization, exert significant influence in shaping perceptions (Meschkank, 2012; Rolfes, 2010). Studies have observed that in an attempt to counteract the inherently negative perceptions surrounding informal settlements (Dyson, 2012), operators often position these spaces as beacons of hope, underlining the tenacity, optimism, and aspirations of the residents (Crossley, 2012; Dürr et al. 2020; Huysamen et al. 2020; Meschkank, 2011). Moreover, to navigate the moral complexities that tourists might grapple with, operators design their offerings as ethical enterprises, promising both enlightenment for the tourists and tangible economic upliftment for the communities (Muldoon and Mair, 2016; Nisbett, 2017).

However, such strategies face intellectual scrutiny for their potential to obfuscate the palpable suffering that underpins these urban landscapes. Several studies affirm that poverty dominates the observational narratives across tours in global cities from Mumbai to Rio de Janeiro (Crossley, 2012; Dürr et al. 2020; Meschkank, 2012). As Clini and Valančiūnas (2023) observed, such sanitized representations, while better than negative stereotypes, could unintentionally normalize the systemic inequalities associated with poverty. This approach not only risks reducing the perceived need for urgent poverty alleviation efforts but also may leave existing societal inequalities unchallenged. This has prompted critiques that label the phenomenon as commercial “voyeurism, and exploitation for commercial ends” (Burgold and Rolfes, 2013, p. 162).

For tourists, their motivation often orbits around the pursuit of “authenticity” when they consider visiting informal settlements (see Clini and Valančiūnas, 2023; Crossley, 2012; Gupta, 2016; Meschkank, 2011; Steinbrink, 2012). Marketed as unvarnished encounters with reality, informal settlements are often depicted as bastions of culture, diversity, and authenticity (Frenzel et al. 2015). This category of slum tourism is, thus, situated within the broader realm of “reality tourism,” promising participatory experiences in socio-economically challenged urban landscapes (Wise et al. 2019). However, this approach, despite aligning with general tourism patterns, is not devoid of problems. The very essence of this touristic venture, which is to experience urban impoverishment, inherently establishes an imbalanced dynamic between tourists and inhabitants, leading to its characterization as a form of voyeurism. (Dürr et al. 2020; Meschkank, 2011).

In the last decade, slum tourism has diversified with new tours offered by locals and NGOs, aiming to challenge stereotypes and present a more complex picture of informal settlements. Frenzel (2014) noted that guides can empower communities by focusing on often-ignored aspects of these areas. While motivations vary, with some guides driven by profit and others by community welfare and resisting gentrification effects, the role of guides is crucial. Angelini’s (2020) examination of favela tours accentuated the nuanced challenges faced by these guides, as they attempt to strike a balance between authentic representation and the commodification of their environments. Further, Dürr et al. (2021) in their ethnographic study in Mexico City’s Tepito, showed how guides can positively portray deprived areas without depoliticizing them, contextualizing local achievements within city politics and using historical narratives to emphasize the area’s significance.

In the digital era, social media significantly influences the slum tourism narrative (Sarrica et al. 2021). The Internet is vital for operators to market and sell tours and provide information to potential travelers (Privitera, 2015). Many studies have analyzed slum tourism portrayals in online reviews and media, exploring how these areas and experiences are represented (Huysamen et al. 2020; Nisbett, 2017; Sarrica et al. 2021; Shang et al. 2022; Wise et al. 2019). For instance, Nisbett (2017) highlighted concerns about reviews that often gloss over poverty’s complexities, focusing instead on the tours’ economic aspects. Similarly, Huysamen et al. (2020) observed that tourist narratives tend to paint these areas as “slums of hope,” ignoring the disparity between wealthy tourists and impoverished locals. Ekdale and Tuwei (2016) studied texts from Kibera visitors, noting that while tourists claim to gain authentic understanding of global inequality, their privileged perspective remains unexamined. These “ironic encounters” often reinforce global inequalities, serving more as self-validation for tourists than a true engagement with local challenges.

On the flip side, social media’s role in depicting informal settlements is not always reductive. Some academics posit that these platforms can provide a counter-narrative to skewed representations by offering avenues to disseminate a diverse array of authentic stories and perspectives (Sarrica et al. 2021). Crucially, social media can amplify local residents’ voices, allowing them to share concerns about slum tourism, including privacy, potential exploitation, and daily life disruptions (Crapolicchio et al. 2022). The digital era thus presents both opportunities and challenges for slum tourism, underscoring the need for ethical and respectful interactions that honor and authentically represent these communities’ narratives.

Social and economic impact of slum tourism to local communities

The economic and social impacts of tourism in these informal settlements are prominent themes in slum tourism research. Across various countries, including Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia, tourism has spurred urban development and improved living conditions in informal settlements (Anyumba, 2017; Booyens and Rogerson, 2019a; Mekawy, 2012; Sulistyaningsih et al. 2022; Torres, 2012). Developments like aerial cable cars in Brazil’s favelas and minibus-taxis in South African townships have evolved local transportation systems (Freire-Medeiros and Name, 2017; Rietjens et al. 2006). These advancements facilitate social transformation, such as increased security investments in Brazilian favelas (Freire-Medeiros et al. 2013) and “social urbanism” in Colombian barrios, integrating marginalized communities and improving education and security (Hernandez‐Garcia, 2013). A comparative study of the touristification of Gamcheon Culture Village (Busan, South Korea) and Comuna 13 (Medellin, Colombia) highlighted that effective governance can create community networks and stakeholder partnerships, fostering entrepreneurial opportunities (Escalona and Oh, 2022).

Tourism holds potential as a means to reduce poverty by creating employment opportunities in impoverished urban areas (Aseye and Opoku, 2015; Cardoso et al. 2022; Paul, 2016). Slum tourism, in particular, fosters entrepreneurship, allowing residents to start their own tour companies or bed and breakfasts. However, challenges for local entrepreneurs include limited market access, stiff competition, low marketing budgets, poor business locations, and lack of support from established firms, often leading to the marginalization of smaller operators in a market dominated by larger companies (see Chili, 2018; Hikido, 2018; Mokoena and Liambo, 2023; Mtshali et al. 2017; Nemasetoni and Rogerson, 2005). Further, small business owners frequently lack essential education and marketing skills (see Leonard and Dladla, 2020; Letuka and Lebambo, 2022; Rogerson, 2004). Mokoena and Liambo (2023) observed that only a minority of entrepreneurs adopt competitive strategies in their businesses.

Scholars have also observed that the profits from slum tourism are insufficient for significant poverty alleviation (Freire-Medeiros, 2009, 2012). Koen and Thomas’ study of South Africa townships (2015) highlighted the challenge to the idea that small business owners reinvest their profits locally for economic development. Successful entrepreneurs often leave their townships due to a lack of local ties, leading to economic benefits being concentrated among a small, predominantly male, privileged group, while marginalized groups’ businesses yield lower gains. Moreover, most slum tour companies depend heavily on foreign support, resulting in substantial economic leakage (Frenzel and Blakeman, 2015; Meschkank, 2012; Rolfes, 2010).

The social implications of slum tourism form a major focus in recent academic studies, particularly regarding how local residents perceive this tourism form. Surveys and interviews with inhabitants of informal settlements have uncovered a range of reactions, including positive, negative, skeptical, and indifferent attitudes toward slum tourism (Amo et al. 2019; Auala et al. 2019; Freire-Medeiros, 2012; Marschall, 2013; Slikker and Koens, 2015).

In Rio, Mumbai, and Nairobi, some studies reveal that residents feel embarrassed by slum tourism, as certain operators emphasize negative community aspects to cater to tourists seeking “real” poverty experiences, leading to privacy issues (Freire-Medeiros, 2012; Kieti and Magio, 2013; Slikker and Koens, 2015). Conversely, slum tourism is also viewed positively in many areas. Slikker and Koens’ (2015) study in Mumbai and Amo et al. (2019) research in Medellin found residents believe it counters negative stereotypes and raises community visibility. In Nairobi and Cape Town, locals welcome it as a source of income and jobs (Chege and Mwisukha, 2013; Potgieter et al. 2019). Additionally, Muldoon et al.’s South African studies suggest slum tourism empowers residents by bringing international attention to townships, giving them more control over their narratives and a sense of importance (Muldoon, 2020; Muldoon and Mair, 2022).

Indeed, the social impact of tourism is dualistic. As Altamirano (2022a) pointed out, while tourism can establish new material and symbolic frameworks, providing residents with chances for counter-hegemonic actions, it does not uniformly support the cultural empowerment of impoverished communities. Instead, it can result in neoliberal development and increased surveillance. This underscores the necessity for thoughtful policymaking in slum tourism, advocating for policies that prioritize the well-being and cultural richness of communities over mere profit generation, particularly in environments marked by urban disparities and complex power dynamics.

Booyens and Rogerson (2019b) suggested that slum tourism ought to function as a type of “creative tourism,” fostering solidarity and mutual understanding between tourists and local residents, stimulating economic growth in communities, and increasing awareness of the North-South disparity in the postcolonial context. The transition to pro-poor tourism heavily relies on effective policy implementation. Therefore, numerous scholars have advocated for policy instruments to enhance safety and infrastructure, and to facilitate effective coordination among various stakeholders, alongside strengthening institutional frameworks (e.g. Aseye and Opoku, 2015; Booyens, 2010; Chege and Mwisukha, 2013; Rusata et al. 2023).

Furthermore, the success of slum tourism largely depends on local community engagement (Duarte and Peters, 2012). Yet, in many cases, such as in India (Slikker and Koens, 2015), Kenya (Kieti and Magio, 2013), Brazil (Freire-Medeiros, 2012), and elsewhere, local residents’ participation is limited. Various factors contribute to this, including inadequate business knowledge and skills, and social and financial barriers (Dzikiti and Leonard, 2016; Hammad, 2021; Leonard and Dladla, 2020). Addressing this, researchers emphasize the need for tourism-specific training and resources for local entrepreneurs, particularly focusing on youth (Dzikiti and Leonard, 2016; Mbane and Ezeuduji, 2022; Nkemngu, 2014). To leverage slum tourism for community development, equipping locals with the skills and tools for effective tourism participation is crucial, though it remains a challenging goal.