Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Background to community-based tourism in
southern Africa
International agencies increasingly promote tourism, and particularly commu-
nity-based tourism as a means to reduce poverty in developing countries.
Community-based initiatives have proliferated across Africa, Asia and the
Neotropics (Walpole, 1997) and there have been many theoretical and practical
studies examining them (Kiss, 1990; Zube and Busch, 1990; Wells and Brandon,
1992; von Loebenstein et al, 1993; Wells and Brandon, 1993; IIED, 1994). In
Zimbabwe (as reviewed in Chapter 7), landowners and rural district councils are
granted the appropriate authority to utilize wildlife on their land (Murphree,
1996). The devolution of control has allowed community-based resource use
schemes such as the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous
Resources (CAMPFIRE) to develop. CAMPFIRE is a system of harvesting
wildlife where associated benefits are accrued by local communities. Local
Authorities are able to manage wildlife resources on communal land, and harvest
wildlife in accordance with National Parks quotas. Hunting is a favoured tourism
activity in CAMPFIRE regions as it requires little infrastructural and institutional
support (Grossman and Koch, 1995). Money reaching the communities is
distributed by them, in accordance with their wishes; either split between all the
inhabitants equally, or invested in infrastructure such as schools, roads and clinics
(Baker, 1997).
Community involvement in tourism has been widely supported in the litera-
ture as essential (Murphy, 1985; Wilkinson, 1989; de Kadt, 1990; Drake, 1991). It
is emphasized from a moral point of view, an equity perspective, a developmental
perspective and from a business management view (de Kadt, 1990; Cater, 1996;
Wilkinson, 1989; Brohman, 1996). Community ownership provides livelihood
security, minimal leakage, efficient conflict resolution, increases in the local
populations social carrying capacity, and improved conservation (Steele, 1995).
From a conservation perspective, using local populations to protect resources
rather than external people is more effective (Chambers, 1988). Local knowledge
of wildlife and forest products can also greatly enhance tourism services, and may
have implications for practical infrastructural development through the use of
vegetation products (Hawkins et al, 1995), reduces leakage, lowers costs and
enhances local multiplier effects (Cater, 1996).
Costs associated with community tourism projects include the fact that they
are expensive, they generate high expectations which may not be achievable, new
conflicts may arise as marginal groups become more empowered while elites gain
greater benefits through networks (Zazueta, 1995).They may fail because author-
ity has not been devolved to the appropriate lowest level and so benefits from
activities are not returned to the community (Attwell and Cotterill, 2000). Donor
support may be fickle, and may be removed by the donor at any time, as there are
no contracts to state that a donor must remain until a project is sustainable. In
addition, despite attempts to empower communities to exploit tourism markets,
they are frequently unable to provide the standard of service the foreign tourists
Search WWH ::




Custom Search