Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Cure-all or curse? A meta-regression on the effect of tourism development

on poverty alleviation
Dapeng Zhang a, Qiaoqiao Wang a, Yang Yang b, *
a
Department of Tourism Management, School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, China
b
Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this study is to synthesize the overall effect size of tourism on poverty alleviation and to unveil
Tourism development underlying factors explaining the heterogeneity of this effect size across estimates. Using a rigorous meta-analysis
Poverty alleviation based on 298 estimates extracted from 33 studies, we calibrate a combined effect size of − 0.14 with a 95%
Publication bias
confidence interval of [-0.23, − 0.05], indicating that tourism moderately reduces poverty. A meta-regression
Meta-regression
Gini coefficient
demonstrates that the effect size of the tourism–poverty nexus is susceptible to several factors, such as
poverty and tourism measures, focal countries’ development level, and endogeneity treatment. In particular, the
results show that use of the Gini coefficient, a popular proxy for the poverty gap, can unexpectedly underestimate
the negative effect size. Moreover, funnel plot and Galbraith plot demonstrate that researchers are apt to report a
positive tourism–poverty nexus in the literature. Lastly, research and policy implications are provided.

1. Introduction however, results remain largely inconclusive. Some scholars have

Eradication of poverty, the first agenda in the United Nation’s Sus­
tainable Development Goals (SDGs), represents one of the most critical
global challenges people face. Achieving greater human development
requires lessening extreme poverty along with persistent action to
alleviate socio-economic inequality in all respects. Through unremitting
efforts, global poverty reduction has seen significant progress—but
poverty is far from being eliminated. Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic
has taken a heavy toll on international initiatives around poverty
eradication. Tourism development has long been considered a potential
tool to shrink socio-economic inequity and alleviate poverty. Many
countries, especially underdeveloped ones, have therefore expressed
enthusiasm about fostering the tourism industry given its relatively low
pressure on infrastructure and technology compared with industries
such as manufacturing. However, many tourism projects related to
poverty alleviation have failed to meet economic expectations. Counter-
effects have been observed in social, economic, cultural, and environ­
mental aspects within local communities, casting doubt on the feasi­
bility of tourism to tackle poverty.
The tourism–poverty nexus has inspired extensive work to uncover
the theoretical underpinnings of this relationship. Empirical analyses
have investigated the impact of tourism growth on local poverty levels;
noticed a positive effect of tourism to reduce poverty (Artal-Tur, Brio­
nes-PeÃalver, Bernal-Conesa, & MartÃnez-Salgado, 2019; Garidzirai &
Matiza, 2020). Others have discerned a negative impact of tourism on
poverty alleviation (Alam & Paramati, 2016; Rakotondramaro &
Andriamasy, 2016). Empirical studies have also identified a
non-significant tourism–poverty relationship (Triani, 2019; Zeng &
Wang, 2021). Medina-Muñoz, Medina-Muñoz, and Gutiérrez-Pérez
(2016) proposed an integrated framework regarding tourism’s effect on
poverty and discussed several factors contributing to heterogeneous
results, such as the geographical scope, level of analysis, study methods,
and poverty measures. Against this backdrop, it remains difficult to
conduct cross-study comparisons or to determine where the definite
points of heterogeneity lie. More sophisticated models are thus needed
(Jamieson, Goodwin, & Edmunds, 2004) to better understand the
tourism–poverty link; they will ideally include an array of factors as
mentioned above. In response to scholars’ calls (Frenzel & Koens, 2012;
Mitchell & Ashley, 2010; Winters, Corral, & Mora, 2013), the present
study introduces meta-regression analysis (MRA) to investigate the
tourism–poverty relationship in a synthesized manner. MRA offers an
empirical framework and is capable of integrating disparate economic
results, filtering out potential publication selection bias, and explaining
effect-size variation using socio-economic and econometric explanatory

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zdp0406@zuel.edu.cn (D. Zhang), camille_qiaoqiao@163.com (Q. Wang), yangy@temple.edu (Y. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104650
Received 7 January 2022; Received in revised form 18 August 2022; Accepted 20 August 2022
Available online 5 September 2022
0261-5177/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Zhang et al.
variables (Stanley et al., 2013). These advantages allow us to provide an
overall effect size for the tourism-poverty nexus. We can also illuminate
the magnitude and direction of numerous factors explaining the varia­
tion in effect sizes across studies and models. MRA has been applied to
synchronize empirical results for several topics in tourism economics,
such as tourism and inequality (Zhang, 2021), tourism and economic
growth (Nunkoo, Seetanah, Jaffur, Moraghen, & Sannassee, 2020), and
tourism and World Heritage Site status (Yang, Xue, & Jones, 2019).
This research aims to answer the research question on what is the
overall effect size of the tourism-poverty nexus and what factors explain
the heterogeneity of this effect size. Our study contributes to theoretical
and practical aspects of tourism management in many ways. First and
foremost, this work represents a pioneering and comprehensive effort to
synthesize empirical econometric findings related to the tour­
ism–poverty nexus. The estimated overall effect size of this relationship
provides generalizable empirical insights on tourism’s effectiveness as a
policy tool to alleviate poverty. Second, we acknowledge the presence of
publication bias in econometric studies of the tourism–poverty nexus. It
is therefore advised that researchers should keep the research method
and data collection as transparent as possible. Reviewers and journal
editors should be more receptive to the null findings, which may also
present theoretical and methodological contributions to the knowledge.
Third, by linking meta-analysis with econometric analysis, we shed light
on factors explaining effect-size heterogeneity across studies, thereby
informing the best practice of data collection and model specification/
estimation in future research. Furthermore, the study provides practical
implications for practitioners based on research results. Specific mea­
sures for developing tourism should be strategically addressed in various
master planning efforts to alleviate poverty. The results provide
actionable insights on contextualized factors that may maximize the
potential effect of tourism in combating the local poverty issue.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The ensuing two
sections present a theoretical background and an introduction to critical
factors explaining the heterogeneity in effect sizes. Section 4 provides an
overview of the MRA method along with our literature selection pro­
cedure and estimation strategies. Results and explanations are discussed
in Section 5, as are the robustness checks. Lastly, Section 6 outlines our
conclusions and implications.
2. Literature review
Initially proposed and tested by Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordá
(2002), the tourism-led growth (TLG) hypothesis provides the theoret­
ical and empirical foundation for the positive effect of tourism growth
on economic development. Since then, an influx of literature has pro­
vided empirical support to TLG (Gunduz & Hatemi-J, 2005; Lee &
Chang, 2008; Tang & Tan, 2015). With the heightened overall economic
level in the region, the livelihood of the poverty population may
improve as a result (Croes & Vanegas, 2008). As part of the economic
and social development agenda, tourism development has been recom­
mended as a policy tool to boost the economy and alleviate poverty in
regions and areas, especially those with unique tourism resources.
Despite its popularity, a heated debate persists around tourism’s actual
effectiveness in combating poverty and other forms of socio-economic
inequity.
Some scholars have supported the positive impacts of tourism
growth on poverty reduction: tourism development is thought to alle­
viate poverty in direct, indirect, and induced ways. It is commonly
assumed that tourism development can help relieve poverty through
several means. Examples include job access for the economically
disadvantaged, low (technological) barriers to workforce entry, and
enhanced infrastructure among other qualities (Banerjee, Cicowiez, &
Gachot, 2015; Croes, 2014; Vanegas, Gartner, & Senauer, 2015). The
local tourism industry’s prosperity contributes directly to the local
community via increased income stemming from the redistribution of
tourism revenue. Corresponding livelihood changes, such as job
2
Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650
opportunities (Calero-Lemes & García-Almeida, 2021), particularly
benefit low-income residents in local communities (Njoya & Seetaram,
2018). Tourism development also offers local residents additional job
opportunities, especially for workers who might be less competitive in
other industries (e.g., manufacturing) (Mxunyelwa & Henama, 2019).
Multiple indirect channels for tourism-driven poverty reduction can
become available once economic and social factors are considered.
Providing a promising option for benefiting the poor, the theory of
pro-poor tourism has gained wide attention. Pro-poor tourism is useful
in generating net benefits for the poor, and the benefits of income
redistribution are helpful in shrinking income inequality across income
classes. This industry can also attract investment—Banerjee et al. (2015)
pointed out that tourism investment reduced unemployment from 26%
to 23% and the poverty rate by 1.6% in Haiti. Tourism aids low-income
individuals through social benefits as well; not only does it improve the
education system, but it also enhances road infrastructure to make the
resources required for economic growth more accessible to
poverty-stricken areas (Njoya & Seetaram, 2018). Tourism jobs are
rarely physically demanding. Women have hence tended to favor these
positions; as such, the tourism industry can promote gender equality
(Genç, 2018). Echoing the alleviation of multidimensional poverty, the
merits of the education system and gender equality help improve the
earning capacity of the poor rather than solely on economic deprivation.
Overall, several empirical studies have confirmed tourism’s effective­
ness in reducing poverty (Folarin & Adeniyi, 2019; Llorca-Rodríguez,
García-Fernández, & Casas-Jurado, 2020; Zhao & Xia, 2019).
At the same time, scholars have questioned the validity and reli­
ability of tourism impacts on poverty reduction. The industry’s vulner­
ability to crises can impede the efficacy of poverty alleviation. For
instance, the sudden onset of COVID-19 has returned the global pro­
cessing of poverty reduction to its baseline. Tourism also faces ongoing
challenges of seasonality and concomitant cash flow instability (Bala­
subramanian & Aanchal, 2017), which may lead to seasonal unem­
ployment that compromises the industry’s role in combating poverty. In
addition, the leakage of tourism’s economic impact may temper tour­
ism’s effectiveness in poverty alleviation. Empowering residents has
increasingly become a prerequisite to sustainable community-based
tourism (Choi & Murray, 2010; Sofield, 2003). Otherwise, institutions
and organizations originating outside a given region can readily over­
take industry presence in that area (Taylor, 2001, pp. 70–81); this
phenomenon can produce serious economic leakages and detract from
the benefits local residents derive from tourism development (Manwa
et al., 2017). Non-wage costs are the largest source of leakage (Chidakel,
Child, & Muyengwa, 2021) and are higher when an economy relies on
imports to supply the tourism sector (Rylance & Spenceley, 2017).
Additionally, some scholars believe that the elite capture theory can be
used to explain the phenomenon of unevenly distributed income in
communities (Platteau, 2004). Elites with a higher socio-economic sta­
tus possess stronger social capital that may lead to specifical advantages
in receiving the benefits of tourism growth. The existing socio-economic
hierarchy has caused tourism-associated economic benefits to be un­
evenly distributed across regional social classes. The industry thus has a
minimal impact on low-income residents and leaves the poor even
poorer (Winter & Kim, 2020). Moreover, tourism faces unsustainable
challenges as it plays a short-term role in poverty reduction rather than a
long-run effect. An intrinsic reason is that residents’ fundamental life
quality has not changed radically. Likewise, as tourism has a minor
position in facilitating technology advancement, tourism growth may
not help a region accumulate technological know-how that is transfer­
able to broader economic sectors. Slight contributions to overall pro­
ductivity lead tourism’s long-term impact on poverty alleviation to be
moderate. Lastly, externalities stemming from tourism may deteriorate
the socio-economic and natural environment. These externalities consist
of tourism-induced crimes and pollution (Montolio & Planells-Struse,
2016) as well as rising housing prices and reduced affordability
(Fedyk, Sołtysik, Olearnik, Barwicka, & Mucha, 2020), all of which can
D. Zhang et al.
jeopardize tourism’s ability to reduce poverty. Econometric analysis
results have further confirmed that tourism can exacerbate poverty in a
destination (Oviedo-García, González-Rodríguez, & Vega-Vázquez,
2019).
3. Conceptual framework
Fig. 1 displays the conceptual framework guiding our meta-analysis,
showcasing the moderators that determine the effect size of tourism on
poverty alleviation. Many studies included different measures of tourism
development and poverty reduction, covered distinct research periods,
used various regions/countries for empirical analysis, and employed
unique econometric models for model estimation. To what extent these
differences are responsible for results reported in the literature remains
unknown (Hong, Reed, Tian, Wu, & Chen, 2021). By building a frame­
work that accounts for these assorted characteristics, we performed a
meta-analysis to present rigorous empirical evidence of the overall effect
size of the tourism–poverty nexus along with factors contributing to the
heterogeneity of this relationship across studies. We referred to the
extant literature to extract several factors via three research stages,
namely preparation, processing, and publication. We also integrated
several moderators in our framework to address different aspects of
studies and the estimates used to generate effect sizes (Fonseca &
Sánchez Rivero, 2019; Yang et al., 2019). Details appear in Fig. 1.
3.1. Poverty measurement
Although poverty is a multidimensional concept, most researchers
have evaluated it from two perspectives: poverty occurrence and income
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of meta-regression.
3
Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650
inequality. Common proxies include the poverty headcount ratio, Gini
coefficient, poverty gap, and poverty severity. The poverty headcount
ratio, as a popular poverty measure, captures the proportion of people
living below the poverty line to the total population (Croes & Vanegas,
2008; Tung, 2020). The Gini coefficient indicates inequality among
values of an income distribution, considering the income level across
economic classes (Kronenberg & Fuchs, 2021). The poverty gap and
severity each reflect the intensity of poverty in a nation (Njoya & See­
taram, 2018). Studies have shown that tourism’s effect differs with the
applied poverty measure (Xu, 2016). As such, we aimed to discern
whether this variance would influence effect-size estimation.
H1. Poverty measurement influences the effect size of tourism on
poverty alleviation.
3.2. Tourism measurement
Different measures have been used to specify a region’s level of
tourism development. Popular metrics include (1) relative measures,
such as the ratio of tourism receipts to GDP (Badulescu, Badulescu,
Simut, & Dzitac, 2020; Zuo & Huang, 2017) and the ratio of tourists to
the general population (Shahbaz, Solarin, Azam, & Tiwari, 2020); and
(2) absolute measures, such as the number of tourist arrivals (Lv, 2019;
Odhiambo & Zyl, 2012) and the number of total tourism receipts (Croes
& Vanegas, 2008; Kim, Song, & Pyun, 2016). Relative measures have
often been used to capture the degree of tourism specialization after
standardization, while absolute measures reveal the scale economies or
dis-economies of tourism. Revenue and arrival measures also differ in
their capability to determine the intensity of tourism consumption. For
example, Scarlett (2021) reported a 50% higher effect on poverty
D. Zhang et al.
reduction if tourism receipts relative to GDP were used instead of tourist
arrivals per capita. We hence hypothesize that the tourism measures
chosen in tourism–poverty analysis influence the estimated effect size.
H2. Tourism measurement influences the effect size of tourism on
poverty alleviation.
3.3. Research settings
Tourism type. The effect size of the tourism–poverty nexus may vary
by tourism type: domestic and international tourism both impart distinct
effects on poverty alleviation (Nguyen, Schinckus, Su, & Chong, 2020).
International tourism can bring a country additional income exchange,
then contributing more to income distribution in a nation based on
relevant tax and transfer policies (Nguyen et al., 2020). On the contrary,
domestic tourism may feature more tourism–resident interaction and
greater expenditure on local small and medium-sized businesses; these
actions can be more economically beneficial to the local low-income
class. As a result, many scholars have applauded the pro-poor effec­
tiveness of domestic tourism (Llorca-Rodrígueza, García-Fernández &
Casas-Juradoa, 2020). Our study examines whether the effect size of
poverty differs between international and domestic tourism.
H3. International tourism exerts a different effect size of tourism on
poverty alleviation compared to domestic tourism.
Development level. The United Nations classifies countries as either
developing or developed largely based on per capita income and the
human development index. Developing and developed areas differ
substantially in their infrastructure and institutional environment, each
of which transfers economic benefits to the local community (Lin, Yang,
& Li, 2019). Rahnama, Astaneh, and Hajian (2019) found that interna­
tional tourism income negatively affects the poverty index in developed
and developing countries. Additionally, tourism apparently cannot
make a dent in poverty in India as in other developing countries (Roy,
2010, pp. 1–13). We, therefore, argue that tourism more effectively re­
duces poverty in developed countries than developing ones.
H4. Effect size of tourism on poverty alleviation is different between
developed and developing countries.
Research period. The tourism–poverty nexus may evolve over time.
First, as more governments and organizations become aware of tourism
as a potential poverty alleviation tool, greater effort is being devoted to
social justice and economic equality in destination management.
Related initiatives may magnify tourism’s impact on poverty reduction.
Second, along with the penetration of information and communication
technologies, a growing number of residents—especially those who are
socially or economically disadvantaged—can enter the tourism market
and provide services to travelers with help from these innovations. For
example, the emergence of social media marketing has created a high-
value and reasonably low-cost tourism marketing channel. The preva­
lence of the sharing economy has also altered the tourism supply land­
scape to engage more residents in tourism economies (Dogru, Mody,
Suess, McGinley, & Line, 2020).
H5. Research period influences the effect size of tourism on poverty
alleviation.
3.4. Estimation specification
Endogeneity treatment. Endogeneity is a term used in econometrics to
describe the presence of an endogenous explanatory variable associated
with the error term (Wooldridge, 2009). Endogeneity treatment is
needed to provide unbiased estimates of interest in econometric models.
Quasi-experimental methods and instrumental variable estimation are
commonly used to address these issues in applied economics (Macie­
jewski, 2018; Zhang, Ren, Zhang, & Zhang, 2020). Consequently, we
hypothesized whether instrumental variables could yield different effect
4
Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650
sizes for the tourism–poverty relationship.
H6. Endogeneity treatment influences the effect size of tourism on
poverty alleviation.
Fixed effects. Panel data are typically used in econometric analysis of
the tourism–poverty relationship. Different panel data estimation
methods exist, such as pooled regression, random-effects, and fixed-
effects. Pooled regression fails to control unit-specific effects, and
random-effects models impose a strong and unrealistic assumption on
the error structure. Therefore, the fixed-effects model has been recom­
mended for use with panel data. Many studies have revealed that
distinct estimation methods lead to divergent results when testing the
tourism–poverty nexus (Fang, Gozgor, Paramati, & Wu, 2021; Fayissa,
Nsaih & Tadesee, 2011).
H7. Fixed-effects estimation influences the effect size of tourism on
poverty alleviation.
Long-run vs. short-run effects. Many scholars have conducted unit root
and cointegration tests on data from a time-series perspective. For
example, an unrestricted error correction model that combines short-run
dynamics with the long-run equilibrium is frequently applied to rela­
tively small samples (Zhang & Zhang, 2021). Whether the general
tourism industry produces a timely or delayed impact (corresponding to
a short- or long-run influence) in helping people escape poverty also
remains uncertain. We are thus especially interested in determining
whether significant differences exist between long- and short-run effect
sizes of the tourism–poverty relationship.
H8. Effect size of tourism on poverty alleviation is different between
long-run and short-run estimates.
3.5. Publication outlets
Publication bias, resulting from the non-reporting of null or negative
findings, is antithetical to science. Compared with studies yielding
insignificant results, scholars have suggested that studies revealing
statistically significant findings are more inclined to be published in
academic journals (Dalton, Aguinis, Dalton, Bosco, & Pierce, 2012).
Publication bias represents an obstacle to unearthing genuine effect
sizes. We hypothesize that the estimated effect size will differ across
publication outlets.
H9. Effect size of tourism on poverty alleviation is different in journal
articles compared with other publication outlets.
4. Meta-regression analysis
4.1. Data collection and coding
A meta-analysis takes advantage of statistical techniques to syn­
chronize, evaluate, and explain study-to-study variations in the empir­
ical literature (Stanley, 2001). Per Stanley and Jarrell (2005), the
premise of meta-analysis is to retrieve and identify empirical studies
relevant to a specific topic. We first conducted an exhaustive search of
the academic literature on the tourism–poverty relationship through
several major academic databases, such as Google Scholar, Web of Sci­
ence, Emerald, Taylor & Francis, EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, Wiley On­
line Library, and ProQuest Theses and Dissertations. Keywords included
“tourism”, “tourism development”, “poverty”, “poverty alleviation”,
“poverty reduction”, “poverty eradication”, and “inequality” as well as
their permutations and combinations. Based on these steps, 107 studies
were collected, with the most recent published in July 2021. In the next
step, we screened sources based on the following criteria (Card, 2012;
Nunkoo et al., 2020): (1) the study must include a dependent variable
describing poverty alleviation or a related notion (we discarded many
papers using per capita income as the dependent variable, which is not a
typical poverty measure); (2) tourism is embraced as an independent
D. Zhang et al.
variable and is explicitly measured (we discarded models with quadratic
terms and interaction terms with a tourism measure); (3) the effect of
tourism on poverty alleviation is provided, and relevant information (t
statistics or standard error and so forth) are well reported (if key in­
formation was missing, we strove to acquire it directly from the au­
thors); (4) conceptual papers and those written in a language other than
English were excluded. We ultimately identified 33 research papers,
consisting of 27 journal articles, one conference paper, two working
papers, and three dissertations. The sample with 33 studies is the
maximum possible number we can achieve based on the general coding
standards used in meta-regression from applied economists. Fig. 2
demonstrates the process of data collection in literature search.
The coding process was completed by three authors to guarantee
coding accuracy. First, a preliminary coding scheme including effect size
and paper- and model-specific information was developed. Second, two
authors coded all studies independently and then compared dissimilar
results. To resolve inconsistent codes, another scholar was invited to
jointly discuss all discrepancies until a consensus was reached.
The partial correlation coefficient (r) is used in this meta-analysis to
reflect the impact of tourism on poverty alleviation. This coefficient has
frequently been adopted in econometric meta-analyses (Hong, Reed,
Tian & Chen, 2021). The correlation rij is calculated based on reported
regression t statistics and degrees of freedom as follows:
tij
rij = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
t2ij + dfij
where rij denotes the partial correlation coefficient from the effect size i
in study j; tij indicates associated t statistics; and dfij is the corresponding
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
degree of freedom of tij. The associated standard error is (1 − rij 2 )/dfij
(Yuan, Wang, Zhu, Huang, & Xiong, 2020). As recommended by Schulze
(2004), we did not transform r into Fisher’s Z due to the slight bias
associated with this transformation. Specifically, estimates of the
interaction terms and square terms within a tourism measurement were
dropped in our coding process to minimize potential coding bias (Yang,
García, Viglia, & Nicolau, 2021). These procedures reduced our coding
sample to 298 estimates across 33 studies.
Fig. 2. Data collection process.
Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650
4.2. Empirical model and data description
To reveal the variance derived from potential factors among studies,
we applied the following meta-regression model:
∑
rij = β0 + β1 serij + αk Xik + εij (2)
where serij denotes the standard error of the corresponding rij; X is a set of
potential explanatory variables; and εij is the disturbance term. Without
the explanatory variables X, a statistically insignificant β0 covers the true
effect beyond bias; β1 evaluates an absence of publication bias.
Weighted least squares (WLS) with a cluster-robust standard error
was applied to estimate the model. In WLS, the inverse variance of each
estimated effect size was treated as a weight. This method better corrects
for heteroscedasticity and treats each individual study as a cluster free
from correlation problems in meta-regression. In particular, WLS esti­
mation outperforms random- and mixed-effects meta-regression in the
presence of publication bias and is superior to fixed-effects meta-
regression in most cases (Stanley & Doucouliagos, 2016). We also esti­
mated the model using the generalized estimated equation (GEE) and
hierarchical linear model (HLM) as robustness checks. GEE places less
emphasis on correlated observations from the same study, thereby
avoiding overdependence on dominant data points.
Based on the research hypotheses presented previously, we oper­
(1) ationalized all variables as listed in Table 1. We classified variables into
five categories: tourism measurement, poverty measurement, research
setting, estimation specification, and publication outlet. Specific in­
terpretations of each variable are shown below.
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for variables. Among 298
observations, the average ser for effect sizes was 0.0758. The mean of
mid_year was around 1998. All other variables were categorical. In terms
of poverty measures, the Gini coefficient (poverty_measure = 2) and
poverty headcount ratio (poverty_measure = 1) were most popular,
respectively accounting for 36.24% and 33.22% of our sample.
Regarding tourism measures, 31.54% of estimates were based on tour­
ism’s contribution to GDP (tourism_measure = 1), representing the most
common measure in the sample; this metric was followed by tourism
receipts (tourism_measure = 4). In other words, only a small proportion of
estimates were based on tourist arrival measures (tourism_measure = 2
and 3). More estimates were based on international tourism (tour­
ism_type = 2) than domestic tourism (tourism_type = 3). Only a small
Table 1
Explanations of variables.
Variables Definition
poverty_measure Poverty measure in the empirical tourism–poverty model: 1 =
poverty headcount ratio, 2 = Gini coefficient, 3 = poverty gap, 4
= poverty severity, 5 = other
tourism_measure Tourism measure in the empirical tourism–poverty model: 1 =
tourism receipts to GDP ratio, 2 = tourist arrivals per capita; 3 =
tourist arrivals; 4 = tourism receipts, 5 = other
tourism_type Type of tourism: 1 = both international and domestic tourism, 2
= international tourism only; 3 = domestic tourism only
development_level Development level of the country in the data: 1 = both
developing and developed countries, 2 = developing countries
only; 3 = developed countries only
mid_year Middle point of research period (in year)
endogeneity A dummy variable indicating whether the endogeneity issue of
tourism was treated in the econometric model: 1 = endogeneity
was treated, 0 = otherwise
fixed_effects A dummy variable indicating whether fixed-effects estimation
was used in the econometric model: 1 = fixed-effects estimation
was used, 0 = otherwise
dynamic An indicator of whether the estimate was obtained from a static
or dynamic model: 1 = static model; 2 = long-run effect from a
dynamic model; 3 = short-run effect from a dynamic model
journal A dummy variable indicating whether the estimate was from a
journal publication: 1 = journal publication estimate, 0 =
otherwise
5
D. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650

Table 2 odds of being fully reported” (p. 31). Publication bias arises from two
Descriptive statistics of variables. sources. In Type I publication bias, researchers tend to report a partic­
Continuous variables Obs Mean Std. Dev. ular direction result of the effect size. We introduced a funnel plot to
detect this type of bias, which may distort the true effect, as recom­
ser 298 0.0758 0.0599
mid_year 298 1997.6750 82.1512 mended by Stanley and Doucouliagos (2010). Fig. 3 depicts a slightly
asymmetrical distribution of coded effect sizes (taking the dashed ver­
Categorical variables Obs Frequency Percentage
tical line as the benchmark). Type II publication bias occurs when re­
poverty_measure = 1 298 99 33.22% searchers focus on reporting significant results (Stanley, 2005). We
poverty_measure = 2 298 108 36.24%
applied a Galbraith plot scattered by the standardized effect size and its
poverty_measure = 3 298 53 17.79%
poverty_measure = 4 298 19 6.38% precision (1/ser) to assess this form of bias where large t statistics (ab­
poverty_measure = 5 298 19 6.38% solute values) were reported. As illustrated in Fig. 3, more than 10% of
tourism_measure = 1 298 94 31.54% observations fell outside the 95% confidence level, indicating selection
tourism_measure = 2 298 56 18.79% bias. We further used a FAT-MRA model to jointly provide statistical
tourism_measure = 3 298 32 10.74%
tourism_measure = 4 298 88 29.53%
proof of publication bias assessment (Stanley, 2010). The model of type
tourism_measure = 5 298 28 9.40% II publication bias, considering effect-size magnitude, underwent a
tourism_type = 1 298 166 55.70% minor modification by taking an absolute value of r (Stanley, 2005).
tourism_type = 2 298 120 40.27% Model 1–2 in Table 3 shows the results of the FAT-MRA test. In line with
tourism_type = 3 298 12 4.03%
our previous judgment of plots, publication bias was a key issue in
development_level = 1 298 73 24.50%
development_level = 2 298 199 66.78% tourism-based poverty alleviation studies. Given these findings, it was
development_level = 3 298 26 8.72% essential to check whether publication bias posed a threat to subsequent
endogeneity = 0 298 250 83.89% meta-analyses. Following Rosenthal (1991) and Jayaraj et al. (2020), we
endogeneity = 1 298 48 16.11% carried out the Fail-Safe N test accordingly. This method produces a
fixed_effects = 0 298 189 63.42%
fixed_effects = 1 298 109 36.58%
direct assessment of the threat posed by sampling bias in a literature
dynamic = 1 298 270 90.60% search (Orwin, 1983). We calculated the minimum number of unpub­
dynamic = 2 298 18 6.04% lished studies required to reverse the results of the meta-analysis to
dynamic = 3 298 10 3.36% exclude possible publication bias. The higher the Fail-Safe N value, the
journal = 0 298 71 23.83%
more stable (and persuasive) our results would be. The Fail-Safe N value
journal = 1 298 227 76.17%
was 586, suggesting only a slight possibility that we missed a large
number of articles.
number of estimates were provided in dynamic models indicating long- We next drew a forest plot (Fig. 4) to synthesize the overall effect size
run (dynamic = 2) or short-run (dynamic = 3) effects. Our sample was of the tourism–poverty alleviation nexus. The calibration weight was
dominated by estimates from developing countries (66.78%, devel­ relatively balanced across studies in our sample, ranging from a low of
opment_level = 2). In terms of model estimation, only 16.11% of esti­ 1.61% to a high of 3.69%. The center of the plot is a graphical expression
mates handled endogeneity (endogeneity = 1), and 36.58% were of each study to indicate the individual effect size affiliated with its
conducted using a fixed-effects model (fixed_effects = 1). Lastly, 76.17% confidence level. The solid line perpendicular to the X-axis represents
of the estimates came from journal articles (journal = 1). the invalid line, and the red dotted line denotes the overall effect size. In
calibrating from a random-effects method, the forest plot generated an
5. Results overall weighted effect size of − 0.14 with a 95% confidence interval
[− 0.23, − 0.05]. Lipsey and Wilson (2001) stated that an r value of
5.1. Publication bias and overall effect size − 0.14 represents a moderate effect size. Our data therefore imply that
tourism does exert curative effects on poverty alleviation. Notably, most
Publication bias represents a major threat to the validity of social horizontal lines are short, indicating a highly reliable result. The I2 value
science. As Dwan, Gamble, Williamson, and Kirkham (2013) argued, was estimated to be 94.4, suggesting that 94.4% of the variation in effect
“Studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be sizes was due to heterogeneity. We therefore added potential modera­
published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher tors of meta-regression to detect the source of variation.

Fig. 3. Funnel plot and Galbraith plot for publication bias analysis.

6
D. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650

Table 3
Estimation results from WLS meta-regression based on all effect sizes.
(1) (2)† (3) (4) (5)

All All All Gini coefficient sample Sample without Gini coefficient
ser − 2.3499** (1.0457) 1.2261 (0.7553) − 0.3743 (0.7636) − 1.7471 (1.8982) 1.3232 (0.8192)
poverty_measure = 2 0.4934*** (0.1226)
poverty_measure = 3 − 0.0135 (0.0263) − 0.0083 (0.0240)
poverty_measure = 4 0.0797 (0.0595) 0.1265** (0.0511)
poverty_measure = 5 − 0.0504 (0.0849) − 0.0206 (0.0423)
tourism_measure = 2 − 0.0330 (0.0543) − 0.0813 (0.1472) − 0.0581 (0.0568)
tourism_measure = 3 0.1806*** (0.0558) − 0.1377 (0.0953) 0.1494** (0.0649)
tourism_measure = 4 0.2130*** (0.0475) 0.0695 (0.1029) 0.1841*** (0.0544)
tourism_measure = 5 0.0995 (0.0691) 0.0697 (0.1130) − 0.1246 (0.0950)
tourism_type = 2 − 0.0784 (0.0704) − 0.0396 (0.0693) − 0.0191 (0.1110)
tourism_type = 3 0.1182** (0.0472) 0.1588*** (0.0399) − 0.0612 (0.0745)
development_level = 2 0.2570** (0.1121) 0.2535** (0.0898) − 0.1981* (0.1089)
development_level = 3 − 0.0020 (0.0478) 0.3020 (0.2920) − 0.5638*** (0.1357)
mid_year − 0.0002 (0.0002) 0.0231 (0.0350) 0.0004* (0.0002)
endogeneity 0.2341** (0.0906) 0.5309* (0.2856) 0.0323 (0.0797)
fixed_effects − 0.0148 (0.0282) − 0.0190 (0.1525) 0.0150 (0.0375)
dynamic = 2 0.0396 (0.0821) 0.0171 (0.1327) 0.1976** (0.0927)
dynamic = 3 0.2334*** (0.0712) 0.3850* (0.2093) 0.1728 (0.1213)
journal − 0.1096 (0.0692) 0.1619 (0.2265) − 0.0909 (0.0964)
constant 0.0072 (0.0706) 0.1145** (0.0485) − 0.0044 (0.3143) − 46.5328 (70.0882) − 0.8166** (0.3078)
N 298 298 298 109 189
N (studies) 33 33 33 11 26
R square 0.0464 0.0201 0.5730 0.8005 0.3729
Adjusted R square 0.0432 0.0168 0.5438 0.7680 0.3070

Note: Clustered standard errors in parentheses; † indicates the model using the absolute value as dependent variable; *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Fig. 4. Forest plot.

5.2 Meta-regression resultsTable 3 reports the meta-regression
estimation results using 298 observations from 33 studies. As the over­
all effect size was negative, a positive coefficient indicated that the
corresponding variable lowered the negative impact; a negative coeffi­
cient suggested that the variable strengthened the negative impact.
Model 1–2 included only ser, the standard error of effect size, to test for
publication bias. The significant coefficient of ser reflected type I pub­
lication bias in Model 1 but an empirical absence of type II bias. Model 3
was based on the WLS method with cluster-robust standard errors.
Generally, most of our hypotheses have been successfully tested, except
H5, H7, H9. The chosen poverty measures influenced the reported effect
size in this model, supporting H1. With the poverty headcount ratio as

7
D. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650

the benchmark, the application of the Gini coefficient (poverty_measure
= 2) reduced the effect size substantially. The estimated regression of
poverty measures such as gap (poverty_measure = 3), severity (pover­
ty_measure = 4), and other proxies (poverty_measure = 5) were statisti­
cally insignificant. These results show that inequality-based effect sizes
differed substantially from poverty-based effect sizes in terms of
magnitude. A possible explanation is that the Gini coefficient accounts
for people of all income groups, whereas poverty-based indicators (e.g.,
the poverty headcount ratio) exclusively include people below the
poverty line.
Model 3 further demonstrated the importance of tourism measure­
ment in determining the tourism–poverty effect size, lending support to
H2. The coefficients of tourism_measure = 3 and tourism_measure = 4
were estimated to be positive and significant, indicating that unstan­
dardized measures such as total tourism arrivals and tourism revenue
will underestimate the tourism–poverty effect size compared with the
benchmark of tourism receipts to GDP ratio (tourism_measure = 1).
Therefore, without standardized tourism measures, a large-scale tourism
economy may dilute the impact of tourism on alleviating poverty.
Moreover, tourism type influenced the effect size, and H3 was accepted:
the coefficient of tourism_type = 3 was positive and significant, indi­
cating a smaller effect of tourism on combating poverty compared with
international tourism (tourism_type = 2). Furthermore, for estimates
generated in dynamic models, short-run estimates (dynamic = 3) pro­
duced a smaller negative effect size than long-run estimates (dynamic =
2); no significant difference was observed between estimates from long-
run and static models (dynamic = 1). Our H8 is therefore supported. A
potential explanation is that it takes time to fully internalize the effects
of tourism growth on local poverty reduction, hence why the short-term
effect appears less nuanced than the long-term effects. In addition, H4 is
accepted. Countries’ development level matters—the estimated coeffi­
cient of development_level = 2 was statistically positive. Research in
developing countries yielded a smaller effect size of tourism and poverty
reduction. Another variable, mid_year, was estimated to be insignificant,
revealing consistency in effect sizes over time. This result highlights the
importance of addressing the endogeneity of tourism development in
econometric modeling. Endogeneity was also estimated to be statistically
significant and positive, supporting H6 and showing that this issue tends
to overestimate the negative effect of tourism on poverty. Lastly, the H7
and H9 were rejected. Both fixed_effects and journal were estimated to be
statistically insignificant, implying that these two moderators did not
influence the effect size of the tourism–poverty nexus.
As shown in Model 3, the use of the Gini coefficient lowered the
effect size versus other proxies for poverty; therefore, we split the

Table 4
Robustness check with data and model treatments.
(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Re-weighted WLS Trimmed sample Journal article OLS estimation Random-effects GEE estimation HLM estimation
sample estimation
ser − 0.9910 − 0.2958 − 0.2741 (1.0431) − 0.2977 (0.5291) − 0.5161* (0.3012) − 0.2977 (0.5119) − 0.8597**
(0.7585) (0.6484) (0.3860)
poverty_measure = 2 0.4314*** 0.2441*** 0.5169*** 0.2236** 0.2616*** (0.0421) 0.2236** 0.2372***
(0.0597) (0.0640) (0.1304) (0.1004) (0.0972) (0.0751)
poverty_measure = 3 − 0.0846 − 0.0147 − 0.0668 (0.0730) 0.0285 (0.0323) 0.0100 (0.0315) 0.0285 (0.0313) 0.0371 (0.0246)
(0.0560) (0.0222)
poverty_measure = 4 − 0.0211 0.0710** 0.0408 (0.0952) 0.0783** 0.0796 (0.0488) 0.0783** 0.1281***
(0.0530) (0.0307) (0.0371) (0.0359) (0.0317)
poverty_measure = 5 − 0.0376 − 0.0298 − 0.0642 (0.1011) − 0.0226 (0.0802) − 0.0145 (0.0519) − 0.0226 (0.0776) − 0.0056 (0.0194)
(0.1097) (0.0477)
tourism_measure = 2 0.0002 (0.0497) − 0.0323 − 0.0297 (0.0703) − 0.0856 (0.0586) − 0.0459 (0.0374) − 0.0856 (0.0567) − 0.0948**
(0.0443) (0.0396)
tourism_measure = 3 0.1633*** 0.1042*** 0.1288 (0.0801) 0.1179* (0.0688) 0.1446*** (0.0502) 0.1179* (0.0666) − 0.0507 (0.0722)
(0.0557) (0.0354)
tourism_measure = 4 0.2176*** 0.1461*** 0.2165*** 0.2009** 0.2036*** (0.0368) 0.2009** − 0.0098 (0.0759)
(0.0461) (0.0257) (0.0468) (0.0809) (0.0783)
tourism_measure = 5 0.0484 (0.0711) 0.0938** 0.1103 (0.0701) − 0.1187 (0.1161) − 0.0367 (0.0505) − 0.1187 (0.1123) − 0.1511**
(0.0374) (0.0733)
tourism_type = 2 − 0.1065 − 0.0389 − 0.0564 (0.0736) − 0.1482** − 0.1270*** (0.0333) − 0.1482** − 0.1016*
(0.0716) (0.0544) (0.0687) (0.0665) (0.0600)
tourism_type = 3 0.0293 (0.0659) 0.1284*** 0.1345*** − 0.0220 (0.1006) 0.0087 (0.0627) − 0.0220 (0.0973) − 0.0337 (0.0939)
(0.0450) (0.0478)
development_level = 0.2576*** 0.0831 (0.0641) 0.2854** (0.1167) 0.0620 (0.1067) 0.0699 (0.0449) 0.0620 (0.1032) 0.1342 (0.1085)
2 (0.0661)
development_level = − 0.0035 0.0489 (0.0293) 0.0134 (0.0502) 0.0005 (0.0800) − 0.0084 (0.0562) 0.0005 (0.0774) 0.0001 (0.1032)
3 (0.0313)
mid_year − 0.0002 − 0.0001 − 0.0003 (0.0002) 0.0001 (0.0002) 0.0000 (0.0002) 0.0001 (0.0002) − 0.0000 (0.0001)
(0.0001) (0.0001)
endogeneity 0.3406*** 0.0697 (0.0502) 0.2523*** 0.1028 (0.0800) 0.1155*** (0.0366) 0.1028 (0.0774) − 0.0653 (0.0830)
(0.0755) (0.0852)
fixed_effects − 0.0499 0.0060 (0.0261) 0.0058 (0.0437) − 0.0685 (0.0513) − 0.0516* (0.0292) − 0.0685 (0.0496) − 0.0243 (0.0558)
(0.0401)
dynamic = 2 − 0.0315 0.1369** 0.0455 (0.0781) 0.0886 (0.1554) 0.1029* (0.0536) 0.0886 (0.1503) − 0.0330 (0.0920)
(0.0514) (0.0566)
dynamic = 3 0.2877** 0.2139** 0.2136*** 0.4028*** 0.3516*** (0.0870) 0.4028*** 0.2572 (0.1738)
(0.1056) (0.0992) (0.0669) (0.0921) (0.0891)
journal − 0.0877* − 0.0845 − 0.0793 (0.0680) − 0.0832** (0.0377) − 0.0793 (0.0658) 0.0062 (0.0878)
(0.0515) (0.0660)
constant 0.0312 (0.2827) − 0.1328 0.0087 (0.4105) − 0.3409 (0.2399) − 0.2832 (0.3264) − 0.3409 (0.2321) − 0.0562 (0.2580)
(0.1954)
N 298 293 227 298 298 298 298
N (studies) 33 33 27 33 33 33 33
R square 0.7708 0.3993 0.6109 0.4064
Adjusted R square 0.7551 0.3575 0.5772 0.3659 0.4522

Note: Clustered Standard errors in parentheses; *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

8
D. Zhang et al.
sample into two groups (with and without the Gini coefficient) to better
understand between-group differences. Models 4–5 provide estimation
results of these meta-regression models with 109 and 189 observations,
respectively. Generally, the estimation of effect size in Model 4 was
nearly identical to that in Model 3. The negative effect of tourism on
poverty was estimated to be smaller for domestic tourism (tourism_type
= 2), short-run estimates (dynamic = 3), and research conducted in
developing countries (development_level = 2). Consistent with the results
of Model 3, dealing with endogeneity was predicted to partly reveal the
overall effect size of tourism on poverty reduction. Model 5 presents
estimation results based on the sub-sample using non-Gini measures for
poverty. Findings underscore that the negative effect of tourism was
smaller for non-standardized tourism measures (tourism_measure = 3 and
4), developing countries (development_level = 2), recent years (mid_year),
and short-run estimates (dynamic = 3).
5.3. Robustness checks
We conducted a series of robustness checks using different model
estimation methods in Table 4. First, we re-weighted the model by
further considering the number of estimates in each study; the re-
weighted results appear in Model 6. Findings were mostly similar to
those of Model 3 in terms of explanatory variables’ signs and signifi­
cance levels. For example, across poverty measures, the Gini coefficient
led to a significantly different effect size. The only difference came from
the variable journal, which was estimated to be statistically significant at
the 0.10 level with a positive sign. Research published in journals is
therefore more likely to document a larger negative effect. Second, due
to some outliers on two extreme sides of our dataset, we retained 98% of
the sample to re-estimate the model in Model 7. The major discrepancy
between Models 7 and 3 lies in development_level and endogeneity. The
magnitude of these two coefficients became smaller in Model 7 and,
more importantly, was statistically insignificant. In Model 8, we ran WLS
based on estimates published in journals only (journal = 1). We did not
notice a significant change in estimation results compared with Model 3.
Additionally, we excluded outliers by calculating the DFBETA value; its
absolute value was smaller than 1, verifying the accuracy of our results.
DFBETA values appear in the Appendix.
We further applied different estimation methods for the meta-
regression for a robustness check. More specifically, we used OLS in
Model 9, random-effects estimation in Model 10, GEE estimation in
Model 11, and HLM estimation in Model 12. Across these models, our
results remain robust in general. For example, the estimated coefficient
of poverty_measure = 2 remains positive and significant across different
models, highlighting different effect sizes when poverty was measured
using Gini coefficients in empirical research. Likewise, findings
confirmed the significant impacts of non-standardized tourism measures
(tourism_measure = 3 and 4), domestic versus international tourism
(tourism_type), and short-versus long-run estimates (dynamic) in
explaining the effect size of the tourism–poverty nexus.
6. Conclusion
6.1. Discussion
Past decades have witnessed fierce debate over the effectiveness of
tourism on poverty alleviation, and many scholars have empirically
investigated this relationship. We conducted a systematic meta-analysis
based on estimation results from these studies. In the first step, we
detected two types of publication bias using a funnel plot and Galbraith
plot; results demonstrated that researchers are apt to report a positive
tourism–poverty nexus in econometric modeling. In line with our find­
ings, pro-poor tourism has been accused of overestimating tourism
sector growth (Gascón, 2015; Scheyvens & Russell, 2012). After
excluding the potential influence of publication bias through Rosen­
thal’s Fail-Safe N test, we calibrated the effect size based on 298
9
Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650
estimates extracted from 33 studies. This analysis yielded a moderate
effect size of − 0.14 (p < 0.001) with a 95% confidence interval ranging
from − 0.23 to − 0.05. Our combined effect size was numerically large
among available poverty-related meta-analyses. For example, Zhang
(2021) reported that tourism increased inequality with an overall esti­
mation of 0.046 and a comparatively weak correlation. Our synthesized
outcomes provide evidence that tourism could be harnessed as a means
of curing poverty: tourism, as a labor-intensive industry, can substan­
tially boost the employment of impoverished people to address core is­
sues in poverty to some extent (Manzoor, Wei, Asif, Haq, & Rehman,
2019) and inspire poverty alleviation. Tourism has been deemed
appropriate for poverty-stricken areas owing to its environmental
friendliness and relatively low reliance on technology (Hall & Lew,
2009). Echoing the suggestions of several major organizations, including
the World Bank and the World Tourism Organization, tourism repre­
sents an effective pathway to help people shake off poverty. Put simply,
tourism is well positioned to help eradicate poverty (Scheyvens, 2007;
Torabi, Rezvani, & Badri, 2020).
Moreover, our framework unearthed intriguing findings about the
heterogeneity of the tourism–poverty nexus, explaining why empirical
analyses can reach distinct conclusions. Several factors can explain this
heterogeneity—tourism and poverty measurement, research settings,
estimation specifications, and publication outlets. Our MRA results
showed that applying the Gini coefficient for poverty generated a
smaller effect size versus other poverty-based measures. As noted,
calculation of the Gini coefficient is based on all income groups, whereas
the poverty headcount ratio focuses on the underprivileged. The iden­
tified difference was therefore likely due to the wider population based
on which the corresponding Gini coefficient was computed. Similarly,
the measurement of tourism matters: non-standardized measures (e.g.,
total tourism revenue and tourist arrivals) led to smaller effect sizes
compared with standardized measures (e.g., tourism revenue to GDP
and per capita tourist arrivals). Standardized values could minimize
fluctuations in data and models, making the estimated effect size more
accurate. When considering different tourism types, our results suggest
that the overall effect size is more salient in international tourism than
domestic tourism. International tourism contributes more to a nation’s
income distribution, while domestic tourism revenue only circulates
within a country without additional foreign currency exchange. Find­
ings also reveal tourism-driven poverty alleviation to be more pro­
nounced in developed countries, which are equipped with more
equitable distribution systems that favor lower-income groups. When
analyses account for endogeneity by using instrumental variables or
including causality inferences, the effect size of tourism becomes more
accurate. Endogeneity treatments—whether because of omitted vari­
ables, measurement error, or simultaneity—are therefore effective in
addressing deviated estimation. Lastly, our findings confirm that
tourism imparts a larger long-run effect on poverty reduction than short-
run impacts. In terms of hysteretic features, such as multiplier effects
and trickle-down effects, tourism can only gradually realize its full po­
tential in poverty alleviation in the long run.
Some research hypotheses were not accepted based on the results.
The variable, mid_year, was estimated to be insignificant, indicating that
the tourism-poverty relationship does not evolve over time. The effect
size of studies focusing on more recent periods is consistent with those
focusing on earlier times. One possible reason is that although techno­
logical advancement over time boosts tourism demand and revolution­
izes tourism supply, it fails to fundamentally change the redistribution of
wealth created by tourism. Furthermore, our result shows that fixed-
effects estimation did not generate a significantly different effect size
of the tourism–poverty nexus. This can be explained by the fact that
most empirical studies include a large number of control variables,
which can partly alleviate the omitted variable biases that fixed effects
estimation can overcome.
D. Zhang et al.
6.2. Implications
Three major theoretical implications arise from this work. First of all,
our empirical and systematic evidence supports the overall “curative”
role of tourism in combating poverty worldwide. Second, our meta-
analysis adds value to research design. Although various methods and
estimation settings were included in our sample, we extracted a series of
factors that are critical in determining effect sizes. Lastly, we identified
type I and type II publication bias in tourism–poverty research. Publi­
cation bias hampers the progress and development of disciplines and
policy; as such, such bias merits vigilance. This form of bias may also
give rise to pseudo-policymaking in practice. In light of these consid­
erations, policy formulation could become more feasible by breaking
free from the shackles of reporting “good news.” This shift is also ex­
pected to accelerate theoretical advancement. Moreover, the pre-
registration practice of empirical research can be helpful in improving
the transparency of the research. Essentially, the empirical research can
be pre-registered before the final result is obtained, making the results
less influenced by publication biases. In addition to a heavy reliance on
the reviewers and editors in manuscript quality control, a website served
for tourism research pre-registration is expected to alleviate the publi­
cation bias.
Our study additionally provides several major implications for
tourism and economics researchers interested in the tourism–poverty
relationship. We strongly advocate for the use of “tourism specializa­
tion” measures to identify the effects of tourism in tourism–poverty
analysis; non-standardized tourism measures can dilute tourism’s
demonstrated effectiveness. The endogeneity of tourism measures
should be treated carefully in empirical analysis.
Our findings yield practical implications for practitioners and poli­
cymakers as well. The overall effect size identified herein reveals tour­
ism’s moderate effectiveness in helping the poor climb out of poverty.
Governments should strategically embrace tourism as a meaningful and
sustainable economic activity to combat poverty. Moreover, addressing
the social and cultural well-being of the most disadvantaged populations
is of great consequence to achieving SDGs. Importantly, though, specific
policies should be better contextualized due to the heterogeneity of this
effect; for instance, we discovered that the effectiveness of tourism was
more noticeable in developed countries. This trend implies that a
developed revenue redistribution system, as is common in developed
countries, is needed to guarantee benefits for low-income classes.
Additionally, international tourism generally exerts a more significant
impact than domestic tourism products. Lastly, the effect of tourism on
inequality measures (e.g., the Gini coefficient) is limited; governments
should hence be particularly cautious when proposing tourism as a
policy tool to shrink regional income inequality.
6.3. Limitations and future research agenda
This research is susceptible to some limitations. First, although a
large number of studies have emerged in recent years, our coded set
consisting of 33 studies following rigorous screening criteria for meta-
analysis remains small. This limited sample size further prevented us
from conducting additional subgroup analyses to uncover other inter­
esting facets, such as more specific types of countries for comparison.
Second, tourism and poverty measurements are not limited to our coded
four variables; there are many other proxies, such as the Engel coeffi­
cient, household consumption, GDP per capita, and so on. For instance,
scholars have adopted a Bayesian model based on priors to identify more
variables (Nunkoo et al., 2020). This type of approach enables re­
searchers to screen out important factors in advance, resulting in a more
extensive set of variables rather than simply the most popular ones.
Third, nonlinear relationships deserve further exploration. We noticed
an emerging threshold relationship between tourism and poverty alle­
viation, although data are currently limited. Therefore, nonlinear re­
lations should be studied in the future. Despite these limitations, our
10
Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650
research can serve as a reference for subsequent investigation of the
tourism–poverty nexus. Colleagues’ input is welcome to inspire further
theoretical and practical consideration of this matter. Last but not least,
only English empirical works were included in the sample, disregarding
many empirical results in other languages, such as Spanish, French, and
Chinese. Future studies can consider and evaluate a more comprehen­
sive data sample with international collaborative efforts.
Impact statement
We synchronized the overall effect size of tourism on poverty alle­
viation based on 298 estimates extracted from 33 studies. Results show
that tourism moderately reduces poverty. Therefore, it supports the
overall “curative” role of tourism in combating poverty worldwide.
However, the effect size of the tourism–poverty nexus is susceptible to
several factors, such as poverty and tourism measures as well as focal
countries’ development level. Specific policies should be better
contextualized due to the heterogeneity of this effect; for instance, we
discovered that the effectiveness of tourism was more noticeable in
developed countries. This trend implies that a developed revenue
redistribution system, as is common in developed countries, is needed to
guarantee benefits for low-income classes. The effect of tourism on
inequality measures was found to be limited; governments should hence
be particularly cautious when proposing tourism as a policy tool to
shrink regional income inequality.
Credit author statement
Dapeng Zhang (Conceptualization, methodology, project adminis­
tration, writing - Review & Editing). Qiaoqiao Wang (Software, formal
analysis, writing - Original Draft). Yang Yang (Conceptualization, formal
analysis, data curation, validation, writing - Review & Editing).
Funding information
This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund,
PRC, NO.20BJY207，and the Research project on the construction of
Hubei Yangtze River National Cultural Park in 2022(NO.HCY­
K2022Y04)“Research on the integration and innovative utilization of
Hubei red cultural resources in the perspective of the integration of
cultural and tourism”
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary material to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104650.
References
Alam, M. S., & Paramati, S. R. (2016). The impact of tourism on income inequality in
developing economies: Does Kuznets curve hypothesis exist? Annals of Tourism
Research, 61(C), 111–126.
Artal-Tur, A., Briones-PeÃalver, A. J., Bernal-Conesa, J. A., & MartÃnez-Salgado, O.
(2019). Rural community tourism and sustainable advantages in Nicaragua.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(6), 2232–2252.
Badulescu, A., Badulescu, D., Simut, R., & Dzitac, S. (2020). Tourism-Economic growth
nexus. The case of Romania. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26
(4), 867–884.
Balaguer, J., & Cantavella-Jordá, M. (2002). Tourism as a long-run economic growth
factor: The Spanish case. Applied Economics, 34(7), 877–884.
Balasubramanian, P., & Aanchal. (2017). Financial challenges faced by homestay owners
in heritage tourism destination with special reference to Cochin City. International
Journal of Advanced Research and Development, 2(6).
Banerjee, O., Cicowiez, M., & Gachot, S. (2015). A quantitative framework for assessing
public investment in tourism - an application to Haiti. Tourism Management, 51,
157–173.
D. Zhang et al.
Calero-Lemes, P., & García-Almeida, D. J. (2021). Immigrant entrepreneur knowledge in
the tourism industry of island destinations. Tourism Geographies, 23(3), 527–551.
Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York: Guilford
press.
Chidakel, A., Child, B., & Muyengwa, S. (2021). Evaluating the economics of park-
tourism from the ground-up: Leakage, multiplier effects, and the enabling
environment at South Luangwa National Park, Zambia. Ecological Economics, 182,
106960.
Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes toward sustainable community
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575–594.
Croes, R. (2014). Tourism and poverty reduction in Latin America: Where does the
region stand? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism, 6(3), 293–300.
Croes, R., & Vanegas, M. (2008). Cointegration and causality between tourism and
poverty reduction. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1), 94–103.
Dalton, D. A., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. M., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. (2012). Revisiting
the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: An assessment of published and
nonpublished correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 221–249.
Dogru, T., Mody, M., Suess, C., McGinley, S., & Line, N. D. (2020). The Airbnb paradox:
Positive employment effects in the hospitality industry. Tourism Management, 77,
Article 104001.
Dwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., & Kirkham, J. J. (2013). Systematic review of
the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias-an
updated review. PLoS One, 8(7), Article e66844.
Fang, J. C., Gozgor, G., Paramati, S. R., & Wu, W. S. (2021). The impact of tourism
growth on income inequality: Evidence from developing and developed economies.
Tourism Economics, 27(8), 1669–1691.
Fayissa, B., Nsiah, C., & Tadesse, B. (2011). Research note: Tourism and economic
growth in Latin American countries - further empirical evidence. Tourism Economics,
17(6), 1365–1373.
Fedyk, W., Sołtysik, M., Olearnik, J., Barwicka, K., & Mucha, A. (2020). How overtourism
threatens large urban areas: A case study of the city of Wrocław, Poland.
Sustainability, 12(5), 1–22.
Folarin, O., & Adeniyi, O. (2019). Does tourism reduce poverty in Sub-Saharan African
countries? Journal of Travel Research, 59(1), 140–155.
Fonseca, N., & Sánchez Rivero, M. (2019). Granger causality between tourism and
income: A meta-regression analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 59(4), 642–660.
Frenzel, F., & Koens, K. (2012). Slum tourism: Developments in a young field of
interdisciplinary tourism research. Tourism Geographies, 14(2), 195–212.
Garidzirai, R., & Matiza, T. (2020). Exploring the tourism-poverty alleviation nexus in
the brics group of nations. Ekonomika, 99(1), 93–109.
Gascón, J. (2015). Pro-poor tourism as a strategy to fight rural poverty: A critique.
Journal of Agrarian Change, 15(4), 499–518.
Genç, R. (2018). The impact of tourism in the reduction of gender inequality. Trakya
Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(7), 20–35.
Gunduz, L., & Hatemi-J, A. (2005). Is the tourism-led growth hypothesis valid for
Turkey? Applied Economics Letters, 12(8), 499–504.
Hall, C. M., & Lew, A. A. (2009). Understanding and managing tourism impacts. Oxford:
Routledge.
Hong, S., Reed, W. R., Tian, B. F., Wu, T. T., & Chen, G. (2021). Does FDI promote
entrepreneurial activities? A meta-analysis. World Development, 142, Article 105436.
Jamieson, W., Goodwin, H., & Edmunds, C. (2004). Contributions of tourism to poverty
alleviation: Pro-poor tourism and the challenge of measuring impacts. In Paper
written for the Transport Policy and Tourism Section, Transport and Tourism Division.
Bangkok: UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
Jayaraj, R., Raymond, G., Krishnan, S., Tzou, K. S., Baxi, S., Ram, M. R., et al. (2020).
Clinical theragnostic potential of diverse miRNA expressions in prostate cancer: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers, 12(5), 1199.
Kim, N., Song, H., & Pyun, J. H. (2016). The relationship among tourism, poverty, and
economic development in developing countries: A panel data regression analysis.
Tourism Economics, 22(6), 1174–1190.
Kronenberg, k., & Fuchs, M. (2021). The socio-economic impact of regional tourism: An
occupation-based modelling perspective from Sweden. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 1–21.
Lee, C., & Chang, P. (2008). Tourism development and economic growth: A closer look at
panels. Tourism Management, 29, 180–192.
Lin, V. S., Yang, Y., & Li, G. (2019). Where can tourism-led growth and economy-driven
tourism growth occur? Journal of Travel Research, 58(5), 760–773.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousands Oaks: SAGE
publication, INC.
Llorca-Rodríguez, C. M., García-Fernández, R. M., & Casas-Jurado, A. C. (2020).
Domestic versus inbound tourism in poverty reduction: Evidence from panel data.
Current Issues in Tourism, 23(2), 197–216.
Lv, Z. K. (2019). Deepening or lessening? The effects of tourism on regional inequality.
Tourism Management, 72, 23–26.
Maciejewski, M. L. (2018). Quasi-experimental design. Biostatistics & Epidemiology, 4(1),
38–47.
Manwa, H., Saarinen, J., Atlhopheng, J. R., & Hambira, W. L. (2017). Sustainability
management and tourism impacts on communities: Residents’attitudes in Maun and
Tshabong, Botswana. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 6(3).
Manzoor, F., Wei, L. B., Asif, M., Haq, M. Z., & Rehman, H. (2019). The contribution of
sustainable tourism to economic growth and employment in Pakistan. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3785.
Medina-Muñoz, D. R., Medina-Muñoz, R. D., & Gutiérrez-Pérez, F. J. (2016). The impacts
of tourism on poverty alleviation: An integrated research framework. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 24(2), 270–298.
11
Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650
Mitchell, J., & Ashley, C. (2010). Tourism and poverty reduction: Pathways to prosperity.
London: Earthscan.
Montolio, D., & Planells-Struse, S. (2016). Does tourism boost criminal activity? Evidence
from a top touristic country. Crime & Delinquency, 62(12), 1597–1623.
Mxunyelwa, S., & Henama, U. S. (2019). Small to medium tourism enterprises (SMTEs)
promoting local economic development in Hogsback, Eastern Cape, South Africa.
African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 8(3).
Nguyen, C. P., Schinckus, C., Su, T. D., & Chong, F. H. L. (2020). The influence of tourism
on income inequality. Journal of Travel Research, 60(7), 1426–1444.
Njoya, E., & Seetaram, N. (2018). Tourism and poverty reduction in Kenya—a dynamic
CGE analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 57(4), 513–524.
Nunkoo, R., Seetanah, B., Jaffur, Z. R. K., Moraghen, P. G. W., & Sannassee, R. V. (2020).
Tourism and economic growth: A meta-regression analysis. Journal of Travel
Research, 59(3), 404–423.
Odhiambo, N. M., & Zyl, C. V. (2012). Tourism and poverty reduction in South Africa:an
empirical examination. Actual Problems of Economics, 135(9), 434–444.
Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational
Statistics, 8(2), 157–159.
Oviedo-García, M., González-Rodríguez, M., & Vega-Vázquez, M. (2019). Does sun-and-
sea all-inclusive tourism contribute to poverty alleviation and/or income inequality
reduction? The case of the Dominican republic. Journal of Travel Research, 58(6),
995–1013.
Platteau, J. P. (2004). Monitoring Elite Capture in Community-Driven Development.
Development and Change, 35(2), 223–246.
Rahnama, A., Astaneh, H. K., & Hajian, M. (2019). The relationship between tourism and
equality in income distribution in developed and developing countries: An
application of Panel VAR model. European Journal of Tourism Research, 21, 124–131.
Rakotondramaro, H., & Andriamasy, L. (2016). Multivariate Granger Causality among
tourism, poverty and growth in Madagascar. Tourism Management Perspectives, 20,
109–111.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). In Rev (Ed.), Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Roy, H. (2010). The role of tourism to poverty alleviation. Social Science Electronic
Publishing.
Rylance, A., & Spenceley, A. (2017). Reducing economic leakages from tourism: A value
chain assessment of the tourism industry in Kasane, Botswana. Development Southern
Africa, 34(3), 295–313.
Scarlett, H. G. (2021). Tourism recovery and the economic impact: A panel assessment.
Research in Globalization, 3, Article 100044.
Scheyvens, R. (2007). Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. Current Issues in Tourism, 10
(2–3), 231–254.
Scheyvens, S., & Russell, M. (2012). Tourism, land tenure and poverty alleviation in Fiji.
Tourism Geographies, 14(1), 1–25.
Schulze, R. (2004). Meta-analysis—a comparison of approaches. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
Shahbaz, M., Solarin, S. A., Azam, M., & Tiwari, A. K. (2020). Tourism-induced income
distribution in Malaysia: A practical experience of a truly Asian economy. Current
Issues in Tourism, 23(23), 2910–2929.
Sofield, T. H. B. (2003). Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Stanley, T. D. (2001). Wheat from Chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review.
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 131–150.
Stanley, T. D. (2005). Beyond publication bias. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(3),
309–346.
Stanley, T. D. (2010). Evidence-based decisions and economics: Health care, social welfare,
education and criminal justice. New Jersey: Blackwell.
Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2016). Neither fixed nor random: Weighted least
meta-regression. Research Synthesis Models, 8(1), 19–42.
Stanley, T. D., Doucouliagos, H., Giles, M., Heckemeyer, J. H., Johnston, R. J.,
Laroche, P., et al. (2013). Meta-analysis of economics research reporting guidelines.
Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(2), 390–394.
Stanley, T. D., & Jarrell, S. B. (2005). Meta-regression analysis: A quantitative method of
literature surveys. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(3), 299–308.
Tang, C. F., & Tan, E. C. (2015). Does tourism effectively stimulate Malaysia’s economic
growth? Tourism Management, 46, 158–163.
Taylor, J. E. (2001). Tourism to the Cook Islands. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly.
Torabi, Z., Rezvani, M. R., & Badri, S. A. (2020). Tourism, poverty reduction and rentier
state in Iran: A perspective from rural areas of turan national park. Journal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 13(2), 188–203.
Triani, M. (2019). How to poverty and contributions fro tourism in west Sumatra. Jurnal
Ilmiah Ekonomi dan Bisnis, 16(2), 183–190.
Tung, L. T., & Cuong, L. K. (2020). Impact of tourism on poverty reduction: Evidence
from an emerging tourism market. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 16(3), 45–55.
Vanegas, M., Gartner, W., & Senauer, B. (2015). Tourism and poverty reduction: An
economic sector analysis for Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Tourism Economics, 21(1),
159–182.
Winter, T., & Kim, S. (2020). Exploring the relationship between tourism and poverty
using the capability approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(10), 1655–1673.
Winters, P., Corral, L., & Mora, A. M. (2013). Assessing the role of tourism in poverty
alleviation: A research agenda. Development Policy Review, 31(2), 177–202.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometric: A modern approach (4th ed.).
Australia: South-Western.
Xu, H. L. (2016). A panel quantile regression analysis of tourism effects on poverty
alleviation. International Conference on Poverty and Sustainable Development, 3, 54–66.
D. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 94 (2023) 104650

Yang, Y., García, M. N., Viglia, G., & Nicolau, J. L. (2021). Competitors or complements: Qiaoqiao Wang is a graduate student at the Department of
A meta-analysis of the effect of Airbnb on hotel performance. Journal of Travel Tourism Management, School of Business Administration,
Research, 1–20. Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, China. Her
Yang, Y., Xue, L., & Jones, T. E. (2019). Tourism-enhancing effect of World heritage sites: research interest focuses on tourism economics.
Panacea or placebo? A meta-analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 75(C), 29–41.
Yuan, Y., Wang, M., Zhu, Y., Huang, X., & Xiong, X. (2020). Urbanization’s effects on the
urban-rural income gap in China: A meta-regression analysis. Land Use Policy, 99,
Article 104995.
Zeng, Z. X., & Wang, X. J. (2021). Spatial effects of domestic tourism on urban-rural
income inequality. Sustainability, 13(16), 93–94.
Zhang, J. K. (2021). The effects of tourism on income inequality: A meta-analysis of
econometrics studies. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 312–321.
Zhang, N., Ren, R., Zhang, Q., & Zhang, T. (2020). Air pollution and tourism
development: An interplay. Annals of Tourism Research, 85, Article 103032.
Zhang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Tourism, economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2
emissions in China. Tourism Economics, 27(5), 1060–1080.
Zhao, L., & Xia, X. (2019). Tourism and poverty reduction: Empirical evidence from Yang Yang, Ph.D. is Associate Professor and Arthur F.
China. Tourism Economics, 26(2), 233–256. McGonigle Research Fellow at the Department of Tourism and
Zuo, B., & Huang, S. S. (2017). Revisiting the tourism-led economic growth hypothesis. Hospitality Management, Temple University. His research in­
Journal of Travel Research, 57(2), 151–163. terests include tourism economics and tourism geographies.

Dapeng Zhang, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the School of

Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics
and Law. His research focuses on tourism economics.

12