Impacts of Wildlife Tourism on Rural Livelihoods in Southern Africa - Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development - page 152

Table 7.7 Gairezi Community Eco-Tourism Project income from
NDFFC 2004-2006

Year Income (ZW$) Income (US$) Mean exchange rate

2004 10,000,000 2227 4490

2005 60,000,000 2787 21,351

2006 1,131,925,000 6991 161,909

Source: Taylor and Murphree, 2007

Discussion

This review of the impacts of wildlife tourism on rural livelihoods in southern
Africa has identified some detailed research findings from Botswana, Namibia,
South Africa,Tanzania and Zimbabwe. However, the range of research techniques
used, the timing of evaluations and the scope of the appraisals varies extensively,
which makes comparison in terms of similar themes (e.g. ownership, employ-
ment, household benefits) very difficult. However, some interesting conclusions
can be drawn from the analysis.

Private sector, joint ventures and community-based
enterprises
Table 7.8 summarizes the relative benefits of different types of tourism business
and different forms of nature-based tourism drawn from the literature reviewed.
The overview shows that each type of enterprise has different benefits and limita-
tions for host communities.
Acknowledgement of these different benefits of tourism enterprise structures
in southern Africa may help the private sector, government, NGOs, donors and
communities to decide which model they wish to adopt, depending on their prior-
ities. If they are motivated by profit, a private sector or a joint venture
development may be preferable. If they are motivated by local economic benefits
and empowerment, they may be more interested in a joint-venture or community-
based enterprise. This analysis indicates that joint ventures tend to generate the
best all-round benefits, but they may be more difficult and involve higher transac-
tion costs to get established when compared to simple private sector enterprises.

Employment
The studies reviewed tended to concentrate on the amount of income generated
by wages, and the distribution of concession fees within communities through
trusts and joint ventures. In general, higher quality, higher priced accommodation
in wildlife areas employs more people, at higher salaries than lower value accom-
modation products, and other forms of agriculture (e.g. Sims-Castley et al, 2005).
However, wildlife tourism often takes place in rural areas where levels of
unemployment and poverty are very high, and therefore the overall impacts on