Next Article in Journal
Estimation of the Non-Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory from Ships in the Port of Incheon
Previous Article in Journal
Interactive Game-Content-Based Storytelling for the Environment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 19
10.3390/su12198230
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Community-Driven Tourism Projects’ Economic Contribution to Community Livelihoods—A Case of Makuleke Contractual Park Community Tourism Project

by
Susan Matiku
1,*,
Jethro Zuwarimwe
1 and
Ndivhuwo Tshipala
2
1
Institute for Rural Development, University of Venda, Thohoyandou 0950, South Africa
2
Department of Tourism Management, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria 0183, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(19), 8230; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12198230
Submission received: 1 July 2020 / Revised: 6 August 2020 / Accepted: 10 August 2020 / Published: 6 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tourism is a known rural economic development tool. Furthermore, sustainable tourism seeks to enhance the quality of the resident lives through its economic benefits, among others. One way of diversification economic bases in rural areas is through community-driven tourism projects (CDTP). The tourism projects provide a livelihood strategy to the communities who are involved in the projects. This study makes an attempt to build an understanding of the economic contribution of community-driven tourism projects to sustainable livelihoods. The study draws on a qualitative survey carried out in South Africa’s Makuleke contractual Park Community Project. The study utilized the community capital framework (CCF) to examine the community tourism economic capitals’ (CTEC) contribution to the community livelihoods. The study also investigated on the ripple effect of the economic capital towards other capitals within the community. Thematic content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data while descriptive statistics were used to analyze the demographic data. Findings indicate that through the Makuleke Contractual Park (MCP) tourism project, the community benefited economically in terms of employment and creation of small & medium tourism related enterprises which provided a livelihood strategy for the community. Through the projects’ partnerships with private investors, there was a ripple effect from the economic capital contribution to other community capitals (physical, human, social and natural). Community-driven tourism projects (CDTP) if well managed can transform community capital resources to economic multipliers which can be a livelihood strategy for the community.

1. Introduction

The tourism industry revenues contribute significantly to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa [1,2]. Tourism contributes to rural development through job creation, employment, social cultural growth, as well as infrastructural development [3]. Tourism can be a powerful tool for community development and reducing inequalities if it engages local populations and all key stakeholders in its development [4]. It can also contribute to urban and rural development hence reducing regional imbalances through rendering communities the opportunity to prosper in their place of origin [4]. The sustainable tourism indicators that influence the growth of tourism are economic, sociocultural, environmental and management of tourism [5,6]. Tourism does not exist in a vacuum, it is operated and controlled by stakeholders one of them being the host community. It is paramount to encourage rural communities to utilize the tourism resources which are at their disposal for their livelihoods. Much research has been done on the contribution of tourism to a region’s socioeconomic growth and community benefits. However, only few studies have been found to rigorously assess the economic contribution of community-driven tourism projects (CDTPs) to community sustainable livelihoods. Understanding this economic contribution is important for proper planning, operation and management of the CDTPs and for proper management of other community tourism resources that build up the economic capital of the community.
Thus, this study tries to fill this gap through an investigation which offers insight into how CDTPs contribute to community economic capital. Specifically, this study focuses on the CDTPs processes that initiate partnerships to create employment, initiation of tourism activities that enhance community economic growth, provide a daily income, hence resulting to livelihood diversification and the ripple effect to other capitals that contribute to quality of life for the communities.

2. Theoretical Background

The motivation for sustainability of tourism development in rural areas rests upon the assurance of the rural community economic, environmental and social cultural benefits from tourism. These sentiments were echoed by [7,8,9], who underscored the importance of community sustainability as a key factor for tourism development in an area. Tourism has been documented as an economic development agent as it creates employment within the rural communities and creates small and medium size tourism enterprises [9,10]. For communities to benefit fully from their own tourism resources, they need to not only manage, but take full control of their resources. One program that encourages community self-reliance, own financial benefits and empowerment is community-based tourism [11,12]. However, many community-based tourism programs fail to deliver maximum economic benefits to communities. One of the reasons for this failure is external management and control mechanisms which hinder the local communities’ full control over their economic resources [12,13]. It is envisaged that communities lack capacity to operate and manage tourism projects and this perceptiveness invites external support organizations [14,15,16,17]. Nevertheless, tourism development initiated and purely controlled by the community is more likely to economically benefit the community, reduce poverty and yield more sustainable livelihoods [9,18]. If sustainable tourism was to be achieved and contribute to community livelihoods, then the community participation in the tourism project is paramount [18,19,20].
In the effort to promote development and conserve natural resources in rural areas, tourism has become one of the key development platforms within South Africa [21,22]. The Makuleke Contractual Park (MCP) community-driven tourism project is one example of the many tourism projects in South Africa that have seen community development through tourism. The Makuleke community pursued an eco-tourism joint venture with private lodges to conserve the pristine nature of the park and generate employment and significant economic benefits for the community [23,24].

2.1. Community-Driven Tourism Projects (CDTPs)

Community-driven tourism projects is a way of providing social and physical services to the poor, creating economic activities through utilization of tourism attractions and resource management. CDTPs are a platform for community development. They empower the poor and improve governance. Just like other community-driven developments (CDDs), CDTPs give control of resources to community groups [25]. These groups may work in partnership with demand-responsive support organization such as NGOs, tourism private investors or local government agencies [25]. By directly relying on poor people to drive development activities, [26] alludes that CDDs have the potential to make poverty reduction efforts more responsive to demands, more inclusive, more sustainable and more cost-effective than traditional centrally led programs [25]. Manzuri and Rao [27] recognize that CDDs play a key role in poverty alleviation exertions, realizing immediate and lasting results at the grassroots level and complementing market economy and government-run programs. By use of CDD approach the private sector and NGOs are able to provide some of these services for poverty reduction [28,29,30].
Community-driven tourism projects (CDTPs) enhance sustainability. As consumers the local communities are the most legitimate and well informed of their priorities [31]. Demand is better expressed when the communities contribute to investment costs and control investment choices hence making it sustainable. [25,32] reveal that when Community Based Organizations (CBOs) are allowed to control their investments, there is higher sustainability of resources because the communities are willing to pay for what they want. Furthermore, since responsibilities and resources are devolved to grassroots, development activities are instantaneous and as a result poverty is alleviated [25,33]. All these can be achieved if the community participate fully in development. The tourism projects enable the communities to access tourism resources and utilize them for economic gain. This study used the community capital framework (CCF) to examine the economic contributions of CDTPs to the livelihoods of the communities involved in the projects.

2.2. Community Capital Framework (CCF)

Community capital framework (CCF) provides a tool for analyzing community-driven tourism project economic contributions to community livelihoods. This framework (CCF) provides an instrument to examine and analyze community development exertions through identification of economic resources in each investment, the economic capital invested (flow), the interaction and relationships among other capitals and the subsequent effects across them [34]. Flora and Flora [35] introduced the CCF so as to comprehend measures relating to poverty, natural resource management and social fairness. This model emerged from the practice and application of the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) as well as other participatory strategies [36]. The SLA was developed with the belief that livelihoods are sustainable when individuals or households can recover from shocks while maintaining their stocks of capitals, including natural resources.
Many sustainable livelihood approaches (SLA) track five capitals (human, economic, social, natural and physical). In many cases, the five capital assets presented in the SLA framework establish livelihood ‘building blocks’ [3,37]. A capital can be converted into another capital [37]. In other words, one capital can spiral up to other capitals [31]. For example, natural tourist attractions (natural capital) such as wildlife or landscapes may be transformed into financial capital through entry fees for viewing. The entry fee may then be used to construct physical tourist attractions (physical capital) such as restaurants and/or accommodation facilities. These facilities create employment opportunities for the local communities, create market for local produce and hence build the local economy and increase the sustainability of livelihoods of the local communities.
Community capitals have been used to analyze community development efforts, as well as how communities utilize them for livelihood diversification [3,31,35,38,39]. However, few studies have examined the community-driven tourism projects’ economic contribution to community livelihoods. In this study, the community tourism economic capital (CTEC) was used to analyze the Makuleke Contractual Park tourism project economic contributions to community livelihoods. It also looks at the rippling effect of the economic capital towards other capitals.

2.3. Economic Capital Contribution to Community Livelihoods

Scholars and researchers have adopted the economic capital description depending on the issue on their focus. The description has also been modified from time to time to suit the issues or the phenomenon under study. Scoones [40] p. 8, described economic/financial capital as “the capital base such as cash, credit/debt, savings, and other economic assets’’. Flora on the other hand [41] p. 33, described economic/financial capital as “savings, income generation, fees, loans and credit, gifts and philanthropy, taxes, and tax exemptions”. Additionally, previous studies focusing on tourism described economic capital as income generated from tourism related activities such as employment in a tourism establishment, income from tourism activities and own tourism businesses such as restaurants, hotels, sell of arts & crafts, tourist attraction entry fees and traditional dance incentives [42,43,44].
Several studies have described economic contribution of tourism through sustainable tourism indicators, community development or through the impacts of tourism [45,46,47]. In their study on community capitals stocks and flows, Emery and Flora [34] found that when the state development agencies invested in local resources, local businesses increased hence expanding job employments, local entrepreneurs increased assets and personal income also increased. In this vein, the present paper defines economic contribution of tourism projects as enhancement of income and employment multipliers within the local communities. The indicators of income and employment multipliers are job creation, tourism related small and micro enterprises, locally owned tourism businesses and creation of market for local produce.
In this study, the economic capital contribution of community-driven tourism project to livelihoods was analyzed using indicators such as both direct and indirect income from the tourism project activities. Direct income is the one attained through daily tourist activities where the service provider or the seller of a tourism related item is paid directly by the tourist for the service rendered or the item sold as well as income from employment in a tourism establishment or tourism project. Indirect income is earning through group savings or group project businesses, dividends or organization trust fund.

2.4. Sustainable Livelihoods

Sustainable livelihood comprises people accessing resources (financial, physical, natural, human and social), the ways in which people combine these capital assets to generate livelihoods and their ability to expand their asset base through relations with other actors and institutions [48]. For livelihood to be sustainable, there must be a secure ownership of or access to resources and income earning activities [48,49,50]. Community-driven tourism projects employ the local communities, provide an income through profits and communities have access to capital assets. Chambers and Conway [51] referred to this ownership of and access to resources as security. This security may comprise reserves and possessions to counterbalance risk, reduce shocks and deal with eventualities.
A household may be empowered to achieve sustainable livelihood security in many ways. It may be through ownership of property like land, livestock or having rights to grazing, fishing, through steady employment with adequate remuneration or through varied collection of activities [49,50]. In respect of community-driven tourism project, a household is a family whose members or at least one member of the family is a member of the project. A household which has membership in a community-driven tourism project is expected to own capital assets such as traditional skills, indigenous/cultural knowledge, natural tourism attractions, employment in tourism facility and earning an income from the tourism project, hence one can say that the CDTP provides sustainable livelihood to the household.

3. Methods and Materials

3.1. Study Area and Sample Size

This study was conducted in Makuleke ward, located in the Collins Chabane Municipality in Vhembe District of Limpopo Province, South Africa. The study involved the community members involved in the Makuleke Contractual Park (MCP) project. MCP is located in the Pafuri Triangle within the Kruger National Park, in northern part of South Africa in Limpopo Province [52] (see Figure 1 below). The specific area understudy comprises of the three villages which are occupied by the Makuleke community. These villages are; the Makuleke, the Mabilingwe and the Makahlule under the Collins Chabane Municipality [53].
Through the Makuleke Communal Property Association (MCPA), the community signed several contracts with different private tourist investors and allowed them to construct tourist facilities in the Makuleke Contractual Park (MCP) for preservation of ecological integrity. The contractual agreement obligated the investors to contribute a percentage of their annual earnings for the development of the community.
The agreement also stated that the investors would employ the Makuleke youth in the concession and train them in the Eco-training Camp. Kruger National park would then oversee biodiversity conservation. Through well-wishers (also known as the friends of the Makuleke), the MCP community was able to build a BnB facility meant to earn a revenue for the community project. Following the information gathered from the MCPA executive committee, the Makuleke contractual park had 150 households represented in the project from the three villages under study (Makuleke, Mabilingwe and Makahlule). Out of the 150 households, only 80 were actively involved in the activities of the tourism project (MCP). The 80 households therefore formed the study target population hence N = 80. Considering the limitation of resources and the qualitative approach of the study, the researchers needed to identify and understand issues from the viewpoint of the study participants [54,55] and therefore a selection of a smaller sample was inevitable.
Using the Yamane equation, [56], the sample size was calculated. The Yamane formula was preferred in this study for it provided a simplified method to calculate and apportion the sample size from the total targeted households. Assuming a degree of variability (i.e., proportion) of 0.5 and a confidence level of 95% the formula is demonstrated below.
The Yamane equation formula is:
n = N 1 + N ( e ) 2
where n is the sample size, N is the population size and e is the level of precision. Using the household as the sampling unit and setting the sampling precision at 5% (i.e., e = 0.05) the sample size for the study area household representation is calculated as follows: MCP active households—N = 80.
n = 80 1 + 80 ( 0.0025 ) = 66.6   ( rounded   off   to   67 )
The sample size was therefore n = 67.
The sample size (67) was then proportionately apportioned to the 3 villages with each being apportioned a sample of 22 households. The sample size (67) household representatives were randomly selected from the 80 households which were actively involved in the project. Fifteen key informants drawn from the executive committee, project administration and traditional leaders were purposively selected.

3.2. Research Design and Data Collection and Analysis

The purpose of this research was to examine the economic contribution of CDTPs to community livelihoods. The study also aimed to explore the ripple effect of the economic capital to other community capitals. In order to achieve these aims, the study adopted qualitative research method, utilizing exploratory design. Interviews allow the researcher to probe more into the experiences and/or knowledge of the participants on the research issues [57]. Open-ended interview questions were structured to understand the context in which the community-driven tourism project was operated and to gain maximum information regarding the CDTP from the interviews. Exploratory design is conducted to gain in-depth information regarding factors to a phenomenon [58]. Focus group discussions were used in order to gain insight in to economic capital contribution to community livelihoods.
Data were collected from the household representatives active in the MCP project and key informants including the projects management executive committee, the traditional leaders and the project administration through face-to-face interviews and focus group discussions. The first author sought permission from the traditional leaders of the three Makuleke villages to conduct the study in the area. Once permission was granted the MCPA executive committee chairperson provided the information on the households who were actively involved in the project. The selected 67 household representatives were invited for a meeting where the purpose of the research was stated and permission was sought to visit their homes for interviews. Following information gathered from the project office and existing literature regarding the project, the interview question list was prepared. Eventually, interviews were conducted with all the 67 household representatives. Each interview session lasted approximately 45–1 h and was recorded with interviewee permissions on a voice recorder. The household representatives were later congregated at the Makuleke cultural center for group discussions.
The focus group discussions were implemented through 7 focus groups. To ensure that participants were free to express their views truthfully the groups were separated based on gender (adult male and adult female). The groups were made up of 7–12 members. The participants comprised of registered members of the Makuleke Contractual Park (MCP). The views of each group were recorded and consolidation of responses and preliminary data cleaning followed thereafter. Themes and patterns were then formulated accordingly and recorded.
Numerous literatures have focused on community-based tourism, sustainable tourism and the economic benefits which tourism contributes to local communities through CBTs, CBRNs [32,59,60]. The results of these previous studies have provided the current research an insight on possible expectations which assisted in formulation of study questions. The study also considered facts from the survey site and earlier literature [24,61], to conceptualize the group discussion question guide in the quest of attesting the projects economic contribution to livelihoods, the ripple effect to other capitals and the role of tourism in community livelihoods. The discussions focused on the issues around the community-driven tourism project and its contribution to community livelihoods. Further, in-depth interviews with key informants were also conducted to get their perceptions regarding the project management and its economic benefits to communities. The survey was conducted between 14 June–10 August 2019.
Thematic content analysis was used to analyze and report themes and patterns formulated during the interviews and group discussions. Quantitative data on demographics was analyzed using descriptive statistics to generate frequencies and percentages. Results are presented in tables and charts. The interviews helped in understanding the aspects of the project management and the perceptions emanating from the narratives given during focus group discussions. Interviews focused on economic benefits of CDTP to livelihoods, conforming within the community capital framework (CCF). The community capital assets are interrelated and sometimes have a cumulative effect to community livelihoods [41]. The aim of this survey was to examine the project’s economic contribution to livelihoods and the economic ripple factor to other capitals (human, social, physical and natural). Verbatim quotations are used in presentation.

4. Results and Discussion

In this section, the projects’ contribution in terms of economic capital are presented. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to achieve the objective.

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Household Representatives

A self-administered questionnaire was issued to the randomly selected 67 sampled respondents and the following are the results for social demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Considering the heterogeneity nature of communities, it is important to understand the age and gender of the respondents. As indicated in Table 1 below, majority of the respondents were male (53.7%), compared to female respondents who were 46.3%. Of all the participants, 46% were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. The household headship and family size were an important factor in this study in understanding household livelihoods and strategies. Male participants who were heads of households were 53% and female 47%, with a significant 46.3% of respondents having a family size of between 6–10 members.

4.2. Education Level

Lack of basic education and tourism knowledge has been seen to be a major constrain and a limitation for communities to actively participate in community-based tourism development [62]. For communities to drive and control their own tourism project for economic gain, they need to have basic education. The local communities therefore need to be equipped with the required tourism knowledge and skills.
Examining the education level of the participants in this study was key for evaluation of the community capabilities to plan, operate and manage the tourism projects. As demonstrated on Table 2, in Makuleke, 10.4% of the respondents had attained university level of education with 11.9% having tertiary or technical college level, 19.4% had attained matric, 13.4% grades 8–11 while 12% reached grades 1–7. Furthermore, only 26.9% of the respondents had no formal education.
The results show that majority of the respondents had the minimum education level to enable them to make better decisions in regard to running their tourism projects for economic growth. These findings correspond with [31], who emphasized that educated communities make informed decisions as regards to tourism development. Thrane [63] also argued that basic education is a central issue in social development and poverty eradication strategies.

4.3. Community Economic Capital Contribution of the Makuleke CDTP

The interviews with the key informants revealed that the MCPA executive committee (Exco) was mandated to act on behalf of the Makuleke community and to assist the community to realize the objectives of the CDTP. The MCPA then signed contracts with private investors—also known as the concessionaires—to preserve and conserve the pristine nature of the park.
The concessions were; the Outpost Lodge, Return Africa Lodge, the Eco-training Camp and the South African National Parks (SANP). As depicted by the interview results, the economic benefits received from the project were majorly indirect. An excerpt from the contractual agreement between the MCPA and the private concessions stated that;
“…the eco-tourism concessions would remit a percentage of their annual returns to the MCPA”.
It was noted that the contribution percentages differed from one concessionaire to the next. Another excerpt stated:
“Return Africa Lodge would contribute 15% of its annual earnings, and Outpost Lodge would contribute 10% of its annual returns. The Eco-training camp would contribute in terms of training 3 Makuleke youths per year in tour guiding and conservation”.
“SANP through Kruger National Park (KNP) would contribute through Managing and conservation of biodiversity within the Makuleke Contractual Park”. Through the partnerships the community have also learned how to conserve and preserve biodiversity and hence contributing to natural capital. In other studies, partnerships have been found to produce benefits in community-based tourism initiatives [32,64].
When asked approximately how much the concessions contributed per year, the executive chairperson (female aged 46) explained;
“…In total we receive approximately R1.4 million from the concessions”.
When asked how the money was used, she explained further; “…..60% of this money is used to run the administration of the CPA such as paying wages for MCPA office employees, executive committee meeting allowances, office maintenance and other costs like running and maintenance of the MCPA van. The remaining 40% is used for community development in terms of physical assets such as building community halls, crèche, public library, digging community boreholes and others. It is also used to assist on education bursaries disbursed to needy students from the villages”. The financial benefits received from these concessions have contributed to the communities physical and human capitals, hence creating a spiral effect to the communities’ capitals [31,34].
Further interview results indicate that the concessions also employ people from the Makuleke community.
The economic benefits are further projected on Table 3 below. Table shows the percentages of the respondents against the economic activities they participated in and approximated amounts earned per person per month. It also shows the funds accrued through indirect earnings for the project.
(a)
Direct income
(i)
Small & micro enterprises
As shown in Table 3, only 6% of participants in Makuleke were involved in sell of arts and crafts, which they sell to tourists entering or coming out of the Kruger National Park. These vendors do not have curio shops by the Punda Maria gate, so they sell by hawking. One vendor (female aged 38) said; “…It is not a reliable income, sometimes we sell sometimes we go back with nothing, but in a good month I can say….. I earn approximately R1200”.
Another 15% of respondents participated in song and dance during cultural festivals such as the Heritage Day (this happens once per year). They also perform dance to tourists who visit Makuleke cultural center. This happens a few times in a year and therefore earns them only an approximate of R300 per person. One dancer explained smiling; ….. ….”when we have tourists around, I go to the food store and buy groceries, I sometimes buy Pitza….laughter” This agrees with studies by [42,65], that tourism related incomes supplement to household livelihood portfolios.
Only 1.4% of respondents buy food crops from the irrigation scheme that was acquired by the project and supply to the local restaurants. They earn approximately R8600 per month. One supplier (male respondent aged 40) noted;
“This is a good business that takes care of my family needs, but many people complain they don’t have capital that is why many are not involved”. These results correspond with [66] that tourism provides a market for local produce. A few of the respondents (6%) were operating tourism related businesses such as restaurants and curio shops earning approximately R10000 per month. The 6% comprised two men who operated restaurants, one next to the project office and one at the Makuleke shopping center. The curio shops were operated by two women. One curio shop located at the Return Africa Lodge compound while the other was at the Makuleke cultural center. This shows that community-driven tourism projects can be a platform for community development through which tourism related small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and microenterprises can emerge and enhance the local economy hence improving local people’s livelihoods [67].
  • (ii)
    Employment opportunities
Employment through the project by the concessions was found to be one of the main benefits of the people of Makuleke. Results on Table 3 show that those employed as tour guides (26.8%) earned a salary of approximately R7500, housekeepers (9%) earned R5500, cooks (12%) earned R5000. Those employed by the project as administrators (4.5%) earned approximately R8000, accountants (3%) earned R6000, project secretary/receptionist (3%) earned R5000, project drivers (1.4%) earning R4000 per month. The employment benefits through the project has improved the livelihoods of many households in the villages as one lady aged 36 (mother of four kids) said;
“I thank the MCP tourism project for employing me. Things were very bad before I got this job. I could not feed my children or provide them with basic needs. At least now I have a monthly salary and my family’s wellbeing is better”
The above results are in line with [32] who affirmed that tourism employment has the capacity to improve people’s livelihoods. However, it is important to note that despite the Makuleke communities sharing borders with the Kruger National Park and the project having invested in tourism physical facilities 12% of the participants did not engage in any tourism income generation activities. This may be attributed to the institutional structures in the villages and at the project and also due to the fact that there was low turnout of tourists visiting the site. One respondent (male aged 45) claimed:
“There are no visitors nowadays in Makuleke so there’s nothing to do”
It was established that the low turnout of tourists was caused by non-marketing of the attractions in the study area.
(b)
Indirect income
Since the most profits accrued for the project were paid into MCPA as a trust, accruing to approximately R1.4 million per year, the money was used for community development, mostly for development of public facilities (physical capital). The revenues collected from the concessions also enabled the MCP to build five cottages used as a BnB facility. This facility has the potential to not only generate income for the project, but also provide employment to the community. However, during the interview session with the key informants, it was revealed that the five cottages which were operated as BnB did not have full occupancy in any given week. It only received three guests per week unless during the December holiday when all the five cottages would be occupied. Due to the low occupancy, it only accrued approximately R63000 per annum. It was observed that there was no marketing strategy for the attractions in Makuleke and this attributed to the low returns from the facility.

4.4. Ripple Effect of Economic Capital to Other Capitals

The partnership with the three (3) concessions and the Makuleke community (social capital) improved the community economic capital to some degree. Results indicate that the revenues collected from the tourism project has been invested in community physical assets such as the project office, BnB, public library as well as Wi-Fi installation at the library and in the office, among others. The project has also employed administrative personnel and equipped the office. Through the partnerships, several community members have been employed by the concessions since the agreement was reviewed in 2008. Partnerships in tourism development have been seen to benefit the community through investing in infrastructure as was noted in previous studies [16,32,68,69]. There have been no annual dividends paid to the members from the project.
In summary, the economic capital for Makuleke was elevated through the CDTP and resulted to better infrastructure (physical capital) for the community and many acquired new skills (human capital). The Makuleke contractual park has maintained its pristine nature and its biodiversity has been conserved hence contributing to natural capital as tabulated on Table 4 below.

4.5. Profits and Income Reliance for Livelihoods

The research sought to know the reliance of the income from the tourism projects as a source of livelihood. The livelihood approach in this study placed the community at the center of interest in regard to tourism development in rural areas. It sought to reflect more on the role of tourism to rural community concerns, rather than tourism as a commercial activity seeking commercial returns. The results show that only 29% of the respondents in Makuleke highly relied on the income generated from the project (Figure 2). This was because there were no frequent tourists in the site and therefore there were no variety of income generation activities. However, those employed through the project made the 29% who also expressed being satisfied with the salary and that it was enough for their household needs as displayed by the pie chart below. Those with own restaurants and small businesses like selling artefacts expressed moderate reliant to the project (32%). In this study, tourism emerges as a component of livelihood strategy for rural communities. These results are consistent with earlier studies by [32,44,65,70,71].
The rest (39%) indicated non-reliance to the project income as a livelihood strategy and that they relied on other sources such as government grant. The low reliance on tourism project for livelihood was contributed by non-marketed tourism products in Makuleke. tourism product marketing is very important as it raises awareness and interest of potential tourists to not only visit the destination, but also consume the products therein [22]. tourism is seasonal and therefore there was need to market the products in the study site, so as to regenerate the image of the destination especially after the experienced decline.

5. Conclusions

The participants in this study were adults who were heads of households and therefore livelihood strategy was key. The Makuleke community had basic education needed to organize and participate in planning and development of their CDTP.
Even though there were not many income generation activities in the area, the project had arrangements with partners who provided employment to the Makuleke youth. This has reduced unemployment in the villages greatly. The tourism physical capital development efforts such as the BnB accommodation facility, significantly contributed to employment of the community hence improvement of standard of living of the several households in Makuleke. Partnerships in tourism development have been seen to benefit the community through investing in infrastructure as was noted in previous studies [16,32,68,69]. The project has also employed administrative personnel and equipped the office. Through the partnership several community members have been employed by the concessions ever since the agreement was reviewed in 2008. Despite the fact that the Makuleke participants seemed to rely more on other sources rather than income generated from the tourism project, the project had financed better physical facilities including the five cottages which if well managed could employ more youth and lessen unemployment in the area. The cultural center could also provide a market for the Makuleke traditional artefacts if well marketed and open throughout the year. Numerous studies have been conducted on community-based tourism, sustainable tourism and the benefits they contribute to livelihoods [31,32,65,68]. Moreover, this study has gone further to extract the ripple effect of the economic capital contribution to other community capitals.
Another contribution of this study to the body of knowledge resides on the methodology used. Mostly, similar studies have been conducted using quantitative methods. The qualitative approach used in this study was chosen to understand the context in which the community-driven tourism project was operated. This approach gave researchers an opportunity to explore the problem rather than using encoded information from the literature or utilize results from other studies. It provided an intricate detailed understanding of the issues around the economic capital. The qualitative approach empowered individual participants to express themselves and share their stories through the interviews. By carrying out this qualitative survey we allowed the participants’ voice to be heard through dialog [72].
The study also provides communities, tourism managers and planners with viable information regarding the potentiality of CDTPs to contribute to community livelihoods. This information can be used as a guide for proper planning, operation and management of the CDTPs and for proper management of other community tourism resources that build up the economic capital of the community.

6. Implications of Economic Contribution of CDTPs to Community Livelihoods

The project has contributed economically to the livelihoods of the communities and the Makuleke Contractual Park CDTP opened prospects for livelihood diversification for the communities in the three villages. Institutional Management Structures in this tourism project played a major role in determining the partnerships to be put in place and the income generation activities to be initiated in Makuleke villages. Through the partnerships, employment was created, training agreements were signed and the BnB facility was built. This has seen many youths acquire jobs in the tourist concessions and others gain new skills. Through the CDTP, the community economic capital advanced and a livelihood strategy was diversified. Recognizing the potential of economic capital to community livelihoods has an important implication for effective planning and management of CDTP. However, due to lack of marketing of the available tourist attractions in Makuleke, the destination experienced a decline, and this caused loss of revenues and a daily income for a great number of members of the community. community-driven tourism projects (CDTPs), if well managed and marketed, are an avenue for not only community economic capital development, but also for sustainable livelihoods.
Nonetheless, the current study has various limitations; Primarily the study was carried out on a low budget within a limited time. A quantitative questionnaire survey should have been added to the qualitative information to gain a more understanding on the significance of income to individual household livelihoods and to assess the significance differences in benefit flows between the villages. It is recommended that future studies should incorporate all the community tourism capitals (human, natural, physical and social capitals) to examine their relationship in sustainable livelihoods of the Makuleke community. Additionally, a further study on the role of institutional structures and management of community-driven tourism projects in regard to projects’ contribution to community livelihoods is recommended.

Author Contributions

The co-authors worked together towards completion of the article. S.M. was in-charge of conceptualization, data collection, methodology, final results and original draft preparation. J.Z. and N.T. contributed to supervision, reviewing and revising the methodology and discussion section as well as funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Makochekanwa, A. An analysis of tourism contribution to economic growth in SADC countries. Botsw. J. Econ. 2013, 11, 42–56. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sindiga, I. Tourism and African Development; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kline, C.; McGehee, N.; Delconte, J. Built Capital as a Catalyst for Community-Based Tourism. J. Travel Res. 2018, 58, 899–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. United Nations World Tourism Organization. Tourism and the Sustainable Development Goals. 2015. Available online: http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/sustainable_development_goals_brochure.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2020).
  5. Chiosova, J. Transformation of approaches to the definition of tourism in the context of socio-economic importance. Soc. Econ. Res. Bull. 2015, 4, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bulatović, J.; Rajović, G. Applying Sustainable Tourism Indicators to Community-Based Ecotourism Tourist Village Eco-katun Štavna. Eur. J. Econ. Stud. 2016, 16, 309–330. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bedelian, C.E. Conservation, Tourism and Pastoral Livelihoods: Wildlife Conservancies in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Ph.D. Thesis, University College London, London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  8. Van Der Duim, R.; Peters, K.; Akama, J. Cultural Tourism in African Communities: A Comparison Between Cultural Manyattas in Kenya and the Cultural Tourism Project in Tanzania. In Cultural Tourism in a Changing World; Smith, M., Robinson, M., Eds.; Channel View Publications, Ltd.: Clevedon, UK; Buffalo, NY, USA; Toronto, ON, Canada, 2006; pp. 104–123. [Google Scholar]
  9. Wondirad, A.; Ewnetu, B. Community participation in tourism development as a tool to foster sustainable land and resource use practices in a national park milieu. Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saarinen, J. Communities and sustainable tourism development: Community impacts and local benefit creation in tourism. In A Research Agenda for Sustainable Tourism; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 206–222. [Google Scholar]
  11. Blackstock, K. A critical look at community-based tourism. Community Dev. J. 2005, 40, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zielinski, S.; Kim, S.-I.; Botero, C.M.; Yanes, A. Factors that facilitate and inhibit community-based tourism initiatives in developing countries. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 723–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Han, G.; Wu, P.; Huang, Y.; Yang, Z. Tourism development and the disempowerment of host residents: Types and formative mechanisms. Tour. Geogr. 2014, 16, 717–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Goodwin, H.; Santilli, R. Community-based tourism: A success. ICRT Occas. Pap. 2009, 11, 37. [Google Scholar]
  15. Weaver, D. Community-based Tourism as Strategic Dead-end. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2010, 35, 206–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stone, L.S.; Stone, T.M. Community-based tourism enterprises: Challenges and prospects for community participation; Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Botswana. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zapata, M.J.; Hall, C.M.; Lindo, P.; Vanderschaeghe, M. Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Curr. Issues Tour. 2011, 14, 725–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tosun, C. Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Thetsane, R.M. Local Community Participation in Tourism Development: The Case of Katse Villages in Lesotho. Athens J. Tour. 2019, 6, 123–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xu, H.; Jiang, F.; Wall, G.; Wang, Y. The evolving path of community participation in tourism in China. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1239–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nicolaides, A. Sustainable Ethical Tourism (SET) and Rural Community Involvement. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2020, 9, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  22. Setokoe, T.J.; Ramukumba, T.; Ferreira, I.W. Community participation in the development of rural areas: A leaders’ perspective of tourism. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2019, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  23. Crippen, M.; Salevurakis, J. Debating Public Policy: Ethics, Politics and Economics of Wildlife Management in Southern Africa. In Bioethics of the “Crazy Ape”; Trivent Publishing: Budapest, Hungary, 2019; pp. 187–195. [Google Scholar]
  24. Reid, H.; Stephen, T. The Richtersveld and Makuleke contractual parks in South Africa: Win–win for communities and conservation? In Rights, Resources and Rural Development—Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa; Fabricius, C., Koch, E., Magome, H., Turner, S., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA, 2004; pp. 223–234. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dongier, P.; Van Domelen, J.; Ostrom, E.; Ryan, A.; Wakeman, W.; Bebbington, A.; Alkire, S.; Esmail, T.; Polski, M. Community Driven Development. World Bank Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. 2003. Available online: http://www.academia.edu/download/54031441/WBCDDChapter9.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2020).
  26. LaBonne, J.; Chase, R.S. Do community-driven development projects enhance social capital? Evidence from the Philippines. J. Dev. Econ. 2011, 96, 348–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Mansuri, G.; Rao, V. Community-based (and driven) development: A critical review. World Bank Res. Obs. 2004, 19, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Arnall, A.; Thomas, D.; Twyman, C.; Liverman, D. NGOs, elite capture and community-driven development: Perspectives in rural Mozambique. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 2013, 51, 305–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Bebbington, A. NGOs and uneven development: Geographies of development intervention. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2004, 28, 725–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mathie, A.; Cunningham, G. From clients to citizens: Asset-based Community Development as a strategy for community-driven development. Dev. Pract. 2003, 13, 474–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Stone, M.T.; Nyaupane, G.P. Ecotourism influence on community needs and the functions of protected areas: A systems thinking approach. J. Ecotour. 2017, 16, 222–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mbaiwa, J.E.; Stronza, A.L. The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 635–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wong, S.; Guggenheim, S. Community-Driven Development: Myths and Realities. World Bank Group 2018, 1–36, (WPS8435). [Google Scholar]
  34. Emery, M.; Flora, C.B. Spiraling-Up: Mapping Community Transformation with Community Capitals Framework. Community Dev. 2006, 37, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Flora, C.B.; Flora, J.L. Rural Communities: Legacy and Change, 4th ed.; Avalon Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN: 01813345057; ISBN: 9780813345055. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gutierrez-Montes, I.; Siles, J.; Bartol, P.; Imbach, A.C. Merging a Landscape Management Planning Approach with the Community Capitals Framework: Empowering Local Groups in Land Management Processes in Bocas del Toro, Panama. Community Dev. 2009, 40, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Baumann, P.; Sinha, S. Linking Development with Democratic Processes in India: Political Capital and Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis; Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  38. Callaghan, E.G.; Colton, J. Building sustainable & resilient communities: A balancing of community capital. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2008, 10, 931–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zahra, A.; McGehee, N.G. Volunteer Tourism: A Host Community Capital Perspective. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 42, 22–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Scoones, I. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis; IDS: Brighton, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  41. Flora, C.B.; Flora, J.L.; Gasteyer, S.P. Rural Communities, 5th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  42. Su, L.; Huang, S.; Huang, J. Effects of Destination Social Responsibility and Tourism Impacts on Residents’ Support for Tourism and Perceived Quality of Life. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2016, 42, 1039–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, A. Tourism in rural areas: Kedah, Malaysia. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 878–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tao, T.C.H.; Wall, G. A Livelihood Approach to Sustainability. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2009, 14, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Choi, H.C.; Sirakaya, E. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 1274–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rio, D.; Nunes, L.M. Monitoring and evaluation tool for tourism destinations. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 4, 64–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Roberts, S.; Tribe, J. Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises—An exploratory perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Apine, E.; Turner, L.M.; Rodwell, L.D.; Bhatta, R. The application of the sustainable livelihood approach to small scale-fisheries: The case of mud crab Scylla serrata in South west India. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 170, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Johansson, K.E. Barriers and Bridges for Introducing Agroforestry and Community-Based Forestry Among Food Insecure Households in Eastern Africa. Acta Univ. Agric. Suec. (1652-6880) 2015, 2015:68, 1–103. [Google Scholar]
  50. Imperatives, S. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. 1987. Available online: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Sustainability/Brundtland-Our-Common-Future-1987-2008.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  51. Chambers, R.; Conway, G. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  52. Thornhill, C.; Mello, D.M. Community-based natural resource management: A case study of the Makuleke community. J. Pub. Adm. 2007, 42, 284–297. [Google Scholar]
  53. Stats, S.A. Quarterly Labour Force Survey, Quarter 1: 2019. Available online: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0211/P02112ndQuarter2019.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2020).
  54. Cassell, C.; Symon, G. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research; SAGE Publications: London, UK; Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; New Delhi, India, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  55. Taylor, S.J.; Bogdan, R.; DeVault, M. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  56. Yamane, T. Taro Yamane’s Formula. 1973. Available online: https://www.google.co.za/search?q=taro+yamane+formula&sxsrf=ALeKk01axkernQlOWTSghVS8FAXmcc66ng:159 (accessed on 3 June 2019).
  57. Turner, D.W., III. Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. Qual. Rep. 2010, 15, 754. [Google Scholar]
  58. McNabb, D.E. Research Methods for Political Science; Routledge: Abingdon, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  59. Dangi, T.B.; Jamal, T. An Integrated Approach to Sustainable Community-Based Tourism. Sustainability 2016, 8, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Dodds, R.; Ali, A.; Galaski, K. Mobilizing knowledge: Determining key elements for success and pitfalls in developing community-based tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 1547–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chidakel, A.; Eb, C.; Child, B. The comparative financial and economic performance of protected areas in the Greater Kruger National Park, South Africa: Functional diversity and resilience in the socio-economics of a landscape-scale reserve network. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1100–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Razzaq, A.R.A.; Mohamad, N.H.; Kader, S.S.S.A.; Mustafad, M.Z.; Hadi, M.Y.A.; Hamzah, A.; Khalifah, Z. Developing Human Capital for Rural Community Tourism: Using Experiential Learning Approach. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 93, 1835–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Thrane, C. Earnings differentiation in the tourism industry: Gender, human capital and socio-demographic effects. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 514–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lucchetti, V.G.; Font, X. Community based tourism: Critical success factors. Int. Cent. Responsible Tour. 2013, 27, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  65. Chen, B.; Qiu, Z.; Usio, N.; Nakamura, K. Tourism’s Impacts on Rural Livelihood in the Sustainability of an Aging Community in Japan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Talbot, M. Farm Tourism in Wales. Products and Markets, Resources and Capabilities. The Experience of Six Farm Tourism Operators. Eur. Countrys. 2013, 5, 275–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Manyara, G.; Jones, E. Community-based Tourism Enterprises Development in Kenya: An Exploration of Their Potential as Avenues of Poverty Reduction. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 628–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Munanura, I.E.; Backman, K.F.; Hallo, J.C.; Powell, R.B. Perceptions of tourism revenue sharing impacts on Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda: A Sustainable Livelihoods framework. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Spenceley, A.; Snyman, S.; Rylance, A. Revenue sharing from tourism in terrestrial African protected areas. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ashley, C. The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods: Namibia’s Experience; Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  71. Su, M.M.; Sun, Y.; Min, Q.; Jiao, W. A Community Livelihood Approach to Agricultural Heritage System Conservation and Tourism Development: Xuanhua Grape Garden Urban Agricultural Heritage Site, Hebei Province of China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 12 08230 g001 550
Figure 1. Makuleke Contractual Park (Pafuri Triangle).
Figure 1. Makuleke Contractual Park (Pafuri Triangle).
Sustainability 12 08230 g001
Sustainability 12 08230 g002 550
Figure 2. Project income reliance for livelihoods in Makuleke
Figure 2. Project income reliance for livelihoods in Makuleke
Sustainability 12 08230 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of household representatives.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of household representatives.
CharacteristicsDescriptionPercent (%)
Age18–3546.3
36–4522.4
56–6523.9
>657.5
Total100
GenderMale53.7
Female46.3
Household positionHousehold head—male53
Household head—female47
Family size1–538.8
6–1046.3
11–1513.4
>151.5
Table
Table 2. Education level of household representatives.
Table 2. Education level of household representatives.
Education LevelPercentage (%)
Grade 1–712.0
Grade 8–1113.4
Matric19.4
Tertiary/technical college11.9
University10.4
None (illiterate)26.9
Table
Table 3. Economic capital contribution to the community.
Table 3. Economic capital contribution to the community.
Direct Income Generated from Tourism Project ActivitiesIncome per Month
Tourism ActivityParticipants Involved (%)Approx. Earnings (Zar)
Sell of arts crafts through hawking61200
Incentives for song & dance15300
Supply farm produce to restaurants, hotels/lodges1.48600
Own businesses (restaurants & curio shops)610,000
Motor boat-riding00
Canoeing00
Tour guiding26.87500
Employed by project—administrator4.58000
Employed by project—marketing personnel00
Employed by project—accountant36000
Project secretary/receptionist35000
Project drivers1.44000
Cooks125000
Housekeeping95500
Fish selling00
No direct income from tourism activity120
Indirect income from the projectsApproximate cumulative earnings per annum
BnB63,000.00
Contribution from concessions per annum (25% of annual returns) to Makuleke’s trust fund1.4 million
Dividends to members0
Table
Table 4. Summary of contribution and ripple effect of economic capital to other capitals.
Table 4. Summary of contribution and ripple effect of economic capital to other capitals.
CapitalContribution & Ripple Effect
Contribution of economic capitalEmployment created, creation of tourism related SMEs—these provided a livelihood diversification to the community,
Ripple effect from economic to other capitals
Physical capitalCollection from the concessions used to build public infrastructure (library, project office, project van, sunk boreholes).
Built the BnB
Human capitalThose employed in tourism facilities gained new skills (tour guiding, leadership, etc.).
Project has trained the youth on conservation
Natural capitalThe private concessions operate eco-lodges in the park.
Park entry fee is used for conservation of biodiversity
Social capitalThrough the partnership, employment has been created hence alleviation of poverty in the villages

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matiku, S.; Zuwarimwe, J.; Tshipala, N. Community-Driven Tourism Projects’ Economic Contribution to Community Livelihoods—A Case of Makuleke Contractual Park Community Tourism Project. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8230. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12198230

AMA Style

Matiku S, Zuwarimwe J, Tshipala N. Community-Driven Tourism Projects’ Economic Contribution to Community Livelihoods—A Case of Makuleke Contractual Park Community Tourism Project. Sustainability. 2020; 12(19):8230. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12198230

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matiku, Susan, Jethro Zuwarimwe, and Ndivhuwo Tshipala. 2020. "Community-Driven Tourism Projects’ Economic Contribution to Community Livelihoods—A Case of Makuleke Contractual Park Community Tourism Project" Sustainability 12, no. 19: 8230. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12198230

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop