Yet in Kenya, for example, foreign ownership dominates. The variation arises from national conditions rather than the nature of the industry. Yes and no. In Mauritius, tourism, like manufacturing, is heavily import- dependent whilst tourism in Zimbabwe and South Africa relies very largely on local supplies. Of the rest, almost all is local in South Africa and Zimbabwe with about a third going abroad in Mauritius.
Environmental damage does exist but no worse than from other industries.
Much tourism is based on natural resources such as beaches or wildlife and tourism- targeted conservation does exist. Surveys suggested that Mauritian government fears concerning cultural damage are not shared by the population. Tourist activities in Mauritius are largely segregated from the local population whilst they are not in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Tourism is closely controlled by government policies through visas, exchange controls, or access for airlines and is very dependent on infrastructure. South African tourism is important but not a priority compared to policies promoting dispersal of economic activity and participation by non-whites.