University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2020-09-23 Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: An Investigation of Ecotourism Visitors’ Experience at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana
Yeboah, Bright Adu
Yeboah, B. A. (2020). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: An Investigation of Ecotourism Visitors’ Experience at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112582 master thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: An Investigation of Ecotourism Visitors’ Experience
at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana
by
Bright Adu Yeboah
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ANTHROPOLOGY
CALGARY, ALBERTA
SEPTEMBER, 2020
© Bright Adu Yeboah 2020 ABSTRACT The ecotourism project at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) is a Community-based Ecotourism (CBE) project that has become a popular and fast growing environmentally friendly segment of the tourism industry in Central Ghana, Africa. The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary’s Community-based Ecotourism project is managed and controlled mainly by the community members in the communities of Boabeng and Fiema. This study examines the relationship between the visitor experience and sustainable ecotourism practices at BFMS. This research expands on the literature concerning the ecotourism project at the site and its sustainability by assessing its 1) socio-cultural sustainability, in terms of improvement of social wellbeing of local people and conserving the local culture; 2) economic sustainability, in terms of income generation and creation of employment opportunities; and 3) environmental sustainability, in terms of protecting the monkey species, the white-thighed colobus and the Campbell’s mona monkey, and the forest. Using participatory observation, interviews, and focus group discussions, the relationship between the visitors experience and sustainable ecotourism practices at BFMS is examined based of on four key features: 1) visitor motivations, 2) visitor activities, 3) visitor satisfaction, and 4) visitor experiences that contribute to economic, socio-cultural, and environmental sustainability. Results of this study show that a better understanding of the visitors’ experience in terms of their motivations, activities and satisfactions can lead to improvements with regards to: a) economic sustainability; b) social-cultural sustainability; and c) environmental sustainability. This research emphasizes the need to improve the visitors’ experience in terms of their connection with the cultural, social, and environmental aspects of community-based ecotourism for the ecotourism practice at BFMS to be sustainable in the long term.
ii | P a g e
DEDICATION
To my grandmother Mary Sakyiwaa of Afiatiase family at the Boabeng community.
iii | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis is based on research conducted in Ghana, Africa and completed in Canada,
North America. I am very grateful for the many faculty members of the University of Calgary, the people of Boabeng and Fiema communities, colleagues in Ghana and Canada, friends and family who have encouraged and supported me.
I would like to thank Drs. Pascale Sicotte, Ben McKay, Dianne Draper, and Naotaka
Hayashi for sitting on my thesis defense committee. A special thanks goes to my supervisor Dr.
Sicotte; her patience, knowledge, support, and guidance above and beyond research pushed me through to the completion of this thesis. I thank my co-supervisor Dr. McKay, for his invaluable support, advice, and guidance, especially during my field research design and writing my thesis. I also thank Dr. Yessenova for aiding in developing my methods for writing this thesis. I thank Dr.
Charles Mather for providing information on analyzing the field data for this thesis.
I thank the Chief and elders of Damoaku Stool Land, the Board, and the Management
Committee of Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary for giving me permission to conduct my research at Boabeng and Fiema communities. I express my profound gratitude to the chiefs and priests of Boabeng and Fiema, especially Nana Owusu Damoah Ameyaw III for his influence of the research to be conducted in the communities at no cost. Funding was provided by Dr. Sicotte, the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Graduate Study, and Faculty of Arts.
Many thanks go to Isaac Sarkodie, who assisted me in collecting the field data and provided me valuable information about potential participants. I express my gratitude to the individuals who participated in the research and the Boabeng and Fiema communities for the hospitality they offered me during my research. I thank the manager, Mr. Joachim Boadi and the tour guides of the
Monkey Sanctuary for their cooperation towards me in the field.
iv | P a g e
I am grateful for the individuals at the University of Calgary, the department of
Anthropology and Archaeology especially Allyson King for assistance in my preparation to the field in Ghana and information provided on monkey feeding behavior. I also thank Dr. Caesar
Apentiik, Mariam Bundala, Tianna Rissling, David Achuroa, and Darlene Petrie who provided support during the thesis development. I express my gratitude to Prof. Edward Wiafe, Dr. Bright
Kankam, and Mr. Anthony Dassan for the insight they provided me on the changes of tourists and monkeys behaviors. I would also like to thank lecturers from the University of Energy and Natural
Resources Mr. Richard Obour, Mr. James Agyei Ohemeng, Mr. Ricky Nutsugbodo, and Mrs.
Sylvia Ankamah for their advice and directions they provided to me for the completion of my thesis.
Finally, I thank my family and friends for their incredible support throughout my life and my study. I am grateful to my grandmother Mary Sakyiwaa for providing me accommodation and support during my fieldwork. I am also grateful to my father Adu Yeboah, my mother Grace
Ayiwa, my sister Belinda Boateng, and everyone who help to make this thesis possible.
v | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...... ii DEDICATION...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... ix LIST OF TABLES ...... x LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Problem Statement ...... 3 1.3 Research Questions ...... 4 1.4 Researcher Background in Relation to the Research Topic ...... 5 1.5 Thesis Structure ...... 8 CHAPTER TWO: ECOTOURISM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ...... 10 2.1 Introduction ...... 10 2.2 Tourism ...... 10 2.3 Ecotourism ...... 12 2.4 Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE) ...... 15 2.5 Ecotourism and Sustainable Development ...... 16 2.6 Ecotourism Visitor Experience ...... 19 2.7 Analytical Framework ...... 19 2.8 Summary ...... 22 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...... 24 3.1 Introduction ...... 24 3.2 The Researcher Positionality as Insider-Outsider ...... 24 3.3. Research Design ...... 25 3.3.1 Targeted Population ...... 27 3.3.2 Data Collection ...... 28 3.3.3 Sampling Method ...... 31 3.4 Community Entering and Ethics Consideration ...... 34 3.5 Managing the Data ...... 36 3.6 Data Analysis ...... 37 3.7 Summary ...... 39 vi | P a g e
3.7 The study area: The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) ...... 40 3.7.1 Introduction ...... 40 3.7.2 The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) ...... 40 3.7.3 Flora and Fauna of BFMS...... 43 3.7.4 The History of the People of Boabeng and Fiema ...... 46 3.7.5 The Social Structure of the Boabeng and Fiema Communities ...... 53 3.7.6 Demographics, Economic Activities, and their Implication on the Physical Environment ...... 55 3.7.7 Seasonal Changes Impact at BFMS...... 57 3.7.8 The Ecotourism Program at BFMS ...... 60 Figure 6. Revenue generated from Visitors entrance fees at BFMS from 2009-2019...... 67 CHAPTER FOUR: VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT AT BFMS ...... 70 4.1 Introduction ...... 70 4.2 Description of Visitor Profile ...... 70 4.2.1 Visitor Social Demographic Characteristics ...... 71 4.2.2 Visitor Trip Characteristics ...... 74 4.2.3 Visitor Pre-trip Information ...... 75 4.3 Visitors’ Travel Motivations ...... 77 4.3.1 Destination Attributes (Pull factors) ...... 77 4.2.2 Escape Factors (Push factors) ...... 79 4.3.3 Self Challenge ...... 79 4.4 Visitor Activities ...... 81 4.4.1 Visitor Expected Activities ...... 81 4.4.2 Visitors Activities Conducted ...... 81 4.4.3 Visitor Exciting Activities ...... 85 4.5 Visitor Satisfaction ...... 87 4.5.1 Service Quality ...... 87 4.5.2 Physical Environmental Quality ...... 90 4.6 Sustainable Ecotourism Practices...... 92 4.6.1 Socio-Cultural Sustainability ...... 92 4.6.2 The Economic Sustainability ...... 93 4.6.3 Environmental Sustainability ...... 95 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ...... 98 vii | P a g e
5.1 Introduction ...... 98 5.2 The Measures of Visitors’ Experience ...... 98 5.2.1 Visitor Profile ...... 98 5.2.2 Visitors Motivation ...... 101 5.2.3 Visitor Activities ...... 103 5.2.4 Visitors Satisfaction ...... 104 5.3 Ecotourism and Sustainable Development ...... 106 5.3.1 Socio-cultural Sustainability ...... 106 5.3.2 Economic Sustainability ...... 108 5.3.3 Environmental Sustainability ...... 109 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 112 6.1 Conclusions ...... 112 6.2 Recommendations for Sustainable Ecotourism Practices ...... 114 6.3 Recommendations for Further Research ...... 117 REFERENCES ...... 119 APPENDICES ...... 131 Appendix 1. Visitors Semi-structured interviewed script...... 131 Appendix 2.1. A picture of C. vellerosus (Black and white Colobus) on the ground at BFMS...... 132 Appendix 2.2. A picture of C. campbelli lowei (Mona monkey) on the ground at BFMS...... 132 Appendix 2.3. A visitor’s car stuck on the road to BFMS...... 133 Appendix 2.4. Visitors taking pictures at the BFMS monkey cemetery...... 133 Appendix 2.5. Visitors at the Ficus tree at BFMS...... 134 Appendix 3. Visitors’ trails at BFMS...... 135
viii | P a g e
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BFMS Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary
BFMSMC Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary Management Committee
CBE Community-based Ecotourism
DCE District Chief Executive
GTA Ghana Tourism Authority
GTB Ghana Tourist Board
GSS Ghana Statistical Service
GWD Ghana Wildlife Division
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
KIA Kotoka International Airport
KWIC Key Words in Context
NCRC Nature Conservation Research Centre
SPP Species
TIES The International Ecotourism Society
UNGEDF United Nations Global Environmental Development Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UNWTO United Nation World Tourism Organization
WTO World Tourism Organization
WTTC World Travel & Tourism Council
ix | P a g e
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. A conceptual framework for measuring visitors experience…………….………. 22
Table 2. Results of census of the population of Colobus vellerosus at BFMS…………… 45
Table 3. Number of buried monkeys at BFMS in 2019………………………………….. 60
Table 4. Percentage increase of entrance fees at BFMS from 2016 – 2019 ……………… 66
Table 5. Profile of participating visitors at BFMS…..………………………………….... 72
Table 6. Profile of visitors interviewed at BFMS………………………………………….73
Table 7. Numbers of participants who stayed at the BFMS guesthouse…….…………… 74
x | P a g e
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Sustainable ecotourism development framework ……………………………. 17
Figure 2. Map of Ghana with location of BFMS study area……………...…...... 41
Figure 3. Earth view of the core protected area and tourism features at BFMS…………43
Figure 4. Map of Nkoranza North of Ghana showing the allied communities of BFMS..63
Figure 5. Visitor numbers at BFMS from 2009 – 2019………………………………….65
Figure 6. Revenue generated from visitor entrance fees at BFMS from 2009 – 2019...... 67
Figure 7. Average monthly distribution of visitation numbers to BFMS from 2009 – 2019
………………………………………………………………………………... 68
xi | P a g e
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Ecotourism has been increasingly growing globally as a subsector of the tourism industry since its introduction in 1980s (Sivo, 2007). Ecotourism is broadly defined as responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people (Fennell,
2008; Kiper, 2013; TIES, 1990). There is an emerging concept of Community-Based Ecotourism
(CBE) project, especially in developing countries, which focuses on protecting the natural areas, providing economic benefits, and conserving the culture of the local people (Fennell, 2008; Kiper,
2013; Kiss, 2004; Owusu and Boafo, 2018). Ghana is among the developing countries in West
Africa which started community-based ecotourism projects in 1995 and now has over 30 CBE projects distributed across the country, including Wechiau Hippo Sanctuary, Tafi Atome Monkey
Sanctuary, Paga Crocodile Pond, Duasedan Monkey Sanctuary, Sirigu Pottery and Art, and the
Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (Owusu and Boafo, 2018; Zeppel, 2006).
According to Owusu and Boafo (2018), the primary goal for establishing ecotourism projects in Ghana is to provide opportunities to the local people, to improve their socio-cultural condition, conserve their environment and eventually promote sustainable development. This aspect can be achieved by having a well-established management system involving the local people in society (Owusu and Boafo, 2018). Despite the desired goals, the provision of opportunities, conservation of environment and the involvement of the local communities in different stages of CBE, there is little research that assesses how the visitor experience can contribute to the sustainability of these ecotourism projects in Ghana.
This study investigates how the visitor experience can contribute to sustainable ecotourism practices in Central Ghana and uses the protected area of the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey
1 | P a g e
Sanctuary (BFMS) as a case study. As a major component of this ecotourism project, it is critical to improve our understanding of the visitor experience at BFMS so as to ensure the success of the ecotourism project. The visitor experience involves the accumulation of activities that an individual participates in at an ecotourism destination (Eagles, 1992). The visitor experience is mostly acquired through education, interpretation of natural and cultural attributes, and an individual’s perception (Eagles, 1992; Higham and Carr, 2002). The most important tourist attraction at BFMS is the large number of the two monkey species: the white-thighed colobus and the Campbell’s mona monkey (Eshun and Tonto, 2014; Sammy, 2010;). The co-existence of the monkey species with humans in the Boabeng and Fiema communities enrich the areas’ cultural attractions (Eshun and Tonto, 2014; GWD, 2009; Kankam, Saj, and Sicotte, 2010; Sammy, 2010;).
The CBE project at BFMS is managed and controlled mainly by the community members in the communities of Boabeng and Fiema, with relatively little external governmental and non- governmental organization involvement (Eshun and Tonto, 2014; Owusu and Boafo, 2018). The locals use both a traditional belief system and the legal system to conserve the black and white colobus, and the mona monkeys that live in the BFMS forest and its surrounding areas
(Attuquayefio and Gyampoh, 2010; Eshun and Tonto, 2014; Fargey, 1991; Kankam and Sicotte,
2013; Saj, Mather, and Sicotte, 2006).
In 1996 the ecotourism project at BFMS was introduced by the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey
Sanctuary Management Committee (BFMSMC) with the help of the Ghana Game and Wildlife
Department, the Ghana Tourist Board (GTB) and the Nature Conservation Research Centre
(NCRC) to serve as an economic incentive through distributions of revenue generated from tourists’ activities and to create direct and indirect employment opportunities for the members of the communities (Eshun and Tonto, 2014; Owusu and Boafo, 2018; Sammy, 2010). For instance,
2 | P a g e in terms of direct employment some locals are hired as tour guides, managers, guesthouse caretakers, and security guides (Eshun, 2010). Indirect employment is generated through the selling of food products, handicraft, research assistants, and the local tour operators who give service to tourists. Based on the benefits of these activities it is essential to evaluate the sustainability of the ecotourism at BFMS. A few studies have been conducted to examine the development of the community-based ecotourism project at the site (e.g. Eshun, 2010; Eshun and
Tonto, 2014; Owusu and Boafo, 2018; Sammy, 2010). However, the ecotourism project at BFMS has not been examined for its sustainability using an approach which emphasizes the visitor experience. Understanding visitor experience at an ecotourism destination can be advantageous to the ecotourism service providers. The results of this study can help determine the demographics of the tourists, the motivations for touring the site, what activities visitors prefer, and provide a better understanding of visitor satisfaction and the ways in which ecotourism can be improved for its longevity and sustainability. This study can also help determine which activities support sustainability. In addition, the results obtained from this study can help to improve current visitor experiences and their link to sustainable ecotourism development by addressing the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental sustainability of ecotourism projects.
1.2 Problem Statement
Knowledge about the ecotourism visitor experience such as visitor behaviour, travel motivations, demographics, and satisfaction has increased worldwide over the last decade (Higham and Carr, 2002). In Ghana, however, there are few studies that explore ecotourism visitors’ experiences (e.g. Adam, Adongo, and Amuquandoh, 2017; Amuquandoh, Boakye, and Mensah,
2011; Eshun, Adjei, and Segbefia, 2016). Some of these studies focus mainly on visitors to the
National Parks in Ghana, such as Kakum National Park and Mole National Park (Adam et al.,
3 | P a g e
2017; Amuquandoh, 2017). Amuquandoh et al. (2011) assessed visitors’ experiences at the Owabi
Wildlife Sanctuary, but only focused on the international visitors. Little is known about the ecotourism visitors’ experiences in a Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE) context in Ghana. This study explores the experiences of both domestic and international visitors at a well-established
CBE site, the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) in central Ghana. A better understanding of visitor experience can potentially help the management of BFMS to improve tourists’ visits, to adopt strategies for continued successful Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE), to empower the locals to perform their ecotourism activities, and to facilitate community development socially, economically, and environmentally.
1.3 Research Questions
Central research question – How do visitors’ experiences contribute to Sustainable
Ecotourism Practices at BFMS?
The sub-questions:
In seeking an understanding of the relationship between visitors’ experiences at BFMS and the sustainable ecotourism practices the following sub questions are addressed:
1. What are visitor motivations to BFMS?
a) What are the attributes that attract visitors to BFMS?
b) What are the factors that influence visitors to leave their home to travel to BFMS?
2. What are visitor activities at BFMS?
a) What kind of activities were the visitors expected to be able to do during their visit at
BFMS?
b) What sparks the excitement of visitors at BFMS?
3. What are visitor satisfactions at BFMS?
4 | P a g e
a) What are the services that constitute visitor satisfaction?
b) What environmental component influence visitor satisfaction?
4. What are the visitor experiences that contribute to sustainable ecotourism practices at
BFMS?
a) What visitor experiences contribute to the socio-cultural sustainability at BFMS?
b) What visitor experiences contribute to the economic sustainability at BFMS?
c) What visitor experiences contribute to the environmental sustainability at BFMS?
Understanding the above research questions will help in identifying and addressing key issues to improve the visitors’ experiences at BFMS which may promote community empowerment and sustainable development, while fostering cultural practices.
1.4 Researcher Background in Relation to the Research Topic
I am a native from the Boabeng community, where the Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary is located. My passion for nature conservation and ecotourism development in my community motivated me to pursue a Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources Management at the University of Energy and Natural Resources, Department of Ecotourism Recreation and Hospitality
Management, Sunyani Ghana. As part of this program, I received an internship at Mole National
Park 1(MNP) in the northern part of Ghana, where I spent five months from, January to May 2016, to learn and apply my theory from the classroom into the field. I worked with three departments, tourism, law enforcement, and community outreach at the MNP. At the tourism department I was involved in preparing and briefing tourists about the park before they began their safari. At the law
1 Mole National Park is a protected area among the seven national parks, that serves as the largest wildlife conservation area in Ghana. It is located in the Northern part of Ghana and covers about 4,577 square kilometres, with over 300 bird species, 94 mammal species, 9 amphibian species, and 33 reptile species present. It developed into a key ecotourism site and also provides opportunities for collaborative resource management in some communities near the park (Ghana Wildlife Division website, 2009). https://ghanawildlife.org/mole.html
5 | P a g e enforcement department, I aided in preparing wildlife guide patrolling data sheets. I also joined the wildlife guides in patrolling duties as we recorded and monitored animal and poaching activities. At the community outreach department, I joined the outreach team in communities fringing the park to educate them on how to manage human-wildlife conflict. The internship at
MNP allowed me to gain firsthand experience in wildlife habitat management, tourism management, and community conservation management. Through the knowledge I gained at
MNP, I developed a research interest in community conservation and ecotourism development.
In June 2016, after my internship at MNP, I came to BFMS to volunteer at the Monkey
Sanctuary. The aim of my volunteer work was to apply the knowledge I gained through my internship at MNP to help improve the community species conservation practice and help develop the ecotourism program at BFMS. I did the volunteering at BFMS for three months, from June to
August in 2016. I was trained by some of the guides, including Mr. Edmund Ohene Gyan (retired) and Mr. Isaac Sarkodie. I was trained on how to narrate the history of BFMS and familiarized myself with the visitor trails and its attractions. I performed the duties of a tour guide, narrating the history of BFMS and while walking with visitors along the trails to see monkeys and other attractions. I was engaged in other community activities such as coordinating the 2016 Boabeng community hepatitis B vaccination program and educating community members on the impact of bushfire on their livelihood. During my volunteering and my interaction with visitors at BFMS, I came to realize that the management of BFMS could add some component of information about the community culture and the monkey’s behavior to the history or briefing about the BFMS.
Therefore, I started to research the ecotourism program at BFMS. The research led to the encounter of the University of Calgary’s Primatologists. Then, I started researching and investigating the
University of Calgary’s Primatologists and the work they do at BFMS. I obtained access to some
6 | P a g e publications at the BFMS office, and I noticed that the series of publications were from the
University of Calgary’s primatologists, some of whom were part of the team I met at the Guest
House. In 2018, I decided to pursue graduate education in a field that would allow me to continue to focus on the ecotourism project at BFMS. I applied and received admission to University of
Calgary into the Master program in Anthropology under the supervision of Dr. Pascale Sicotte (the leader of the research team) through the recommendation from Boabeng Chief Nana Damoah
Ameyaw III. In May – June 2018, to familiarize myself with the researchers, and with the notion of moving to Calgary, I worked with the University of Calgary primatology field school at BFMS. I came to appreciate the monkey’s species behavior and ecology and, I gained a better firsthand understanding of the work of primatologists from University of Calgary.
Among the things I learned during that time, I came to understand that the primatologists have classified the monkeys into groups which they study, and they are able to identify most of the individuals in these various groups, especially the black and white colobus monkey, on which their studies are focused. The primatologists associate the monkey species with the trees they usually feed on (Wawa group meaning mostly on Wawa tree), and they also group the monkeys according to the activities they do (Red tails – tails are red because the monkeys come to the ground quite a bit, which is a bit unusual for a colobus monkey). Such information on colobus activities help researchers easily locate the monkeys for their studies. But this information is not conveyed to visitors, simply because researchers may take this for granted and not pass it along to the guides, and because the guides sometimes do not know what questions to ask to get to this type of information. That led me to question what else was missing in the visitor experience at BFMS, and that I needed to address such issues in my research.
7 | P a g e
1.5 Thesis Structure
This thesis is made up of six chapters, including this introduction. Chapter two provides a literature review on tourism, ecotourism and the link between tourism and ecotourism. The chapter also discusses how local involvement in conservation and empowerment can lead to sustainable tourism. It then discusses the positive and negative implications of ecotourism on communities, ecotourism visitors’ experience and how it impacts sustainable tourism.
Chapter three presents the methodology used in the research process. This chapter is divided into two main sections: Section one presents the study area, its geographical location and ecology. It also presents how the monkeys at BFMS were discovered, why the Monkey Sanctuary was created, and some cultural aspects of the people living in the two communities of Boabeng and Fiema. The section highlights some of the events in the development of the ecotourism program at BFMS. Section two outlines the research methods which include the research design used, the research tools, data collection, and research sample recruited for the study. This section provides justification of the choice of research design and tools used for the study. It also discusses the data analysis, data management, and the ethical procedures used in the research process.
Chapter four presents the findings related to visitors’ experience at BFMS. It provides information on visitors’ country of origin, gender, occupations, and age. The chapter also provides narratives from participants based on where they acquire information to the destination, their motive to travel to the destination, the activities in which they participated, the behaviors they exhibited, and the satisfaction participants had in relation to their experience at BFMS. It also includes findings related to environmental, socio-cultural, and economic sustainability in the context of BFMS visitors experience.
8 | P a g e
Chapter five discusses and analyses the key themes that emerge from the visitors’ experience. This chapter provides a discussion on how visitor experiences contribute to sustainable ecotourism with reference to community empowerment, community development, community economic impact, local culture preservation, and environmental and species conservation at
BFMS. Finally, chapter six presents a conclusion which summarizes the study and the findings being discussed. The chapter also provides recommendations for stakeholders involved in visitor experiences for sustainable CBE practices.
9 | P a g e
CHAPTER TWO: ECOTOURISM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the concepts of tourism, ecotourism, community-based ecotourism, sustainable development, and the ideas of ecotourism visitors’ experiences. This study provides a critical assessment of the literature by exploring experiences of both domestic and international visitors at a well-established CBE site, the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) in central
Ghana, and how it can contribute to the sustainability of ecotourism projects in Ghana. I conclude by discussing how this study built upon the present body of knowledge and how it can contribute to sustainable ecotourism practices.
2.2 Tourism
Tourism involves activities that individuals participate in, outside of their usual residence or place of stay, and spend more than 24 hours and less than one year in the new destination
(Camilleri, 2018; Gilbert, 1990; Vanhove, 2011). Tourism activities include leisure, recreation, health, sport, holidays, study, and religious purposes (Camilleri, 2018; Gilbert, 1990; Vanhove,
2011).Tourism is one of the largest industries in the world and is a significant source of employment globally (World Tourism Organization, 2004). According to Ferguson (2007) and the
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2019), tourism is number one in terms of employment opportunity in the international service trade (before the outbreak of Corona virus pandemic in 2020). Globally, the tourism industry generally provides around three percent of overall employment (Ferguson, 2007). For instance, in 2018 the tourism industry and tourism- related activities including air travel created about 329 million jobs worldwide, that is 10 percent of global employment (WTTC, 2020). Such contributions demonstrate that tourism has a
10 | P a g e significant influence on global economic growth with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 10 percent (WTTC, 2020).
In Africa, the tourism industry has been progressively emerging into the global tourism industries, with a faster-growing rate in recent years as compared to the other parts of the world
(Christie et al., 2014; UNWTO, 2010). As a result, the tourism industry in Africa sees the potential for an increase in employment opportunities, in the number of international tourists’ visitations, and in the economic revenue of the destination (Christie et al., 2014). For instance, the records from 1990-2010 shows a progressive increase of international tourists arrivals in sub-Saharan
Africa from 6.4 million visitors in 1990 to 30.7 million visitors in 2010 showing an increase of 4.4 percent and the long-term projections indicate over 50 million tourist arrivals when including the inter-regional visitors (Christie et al., 2014; UNWTO, 2010).
In sub-Saharan African tourism, the number of visitors differs from one region to another and within regions (Christie et al., 2014). For example, East and Southern Africa attracts more tourists than West and Central Africa (Christie et al., 2014). In West Africa, Senegal and Nigeria are the leading tourist destinations, and they (Senegal and Nigeria) make up about 70% of the visitors in the region (Christie et al., 2014). However, in terms of the amount of income generated from tourism, Ghana and Nigeria are the major earners accounting for 60% of tourists’ receipts in the West Africa region (Christie et al., 2014).
In 2011, Ghana tourism sector received the highest foreign direct investment accounting for USD$270 million which is four percent of the total investment in West Africa (Christie et al.,
2014). Thus, the tourism sector provides jobs to individuals in the country and contributes significantly to economic development at the national and local levels (GTA, 2011). In 2012, the
Ghanaian government released its 15-Year National Tourism Development Plan (2013-2027)
11 | P a g e which “assesses how tourism can contribute to national and local economic development and enhance its role as a leading sector for employment creation, revenue generation, environmental conservation and national cohesion and overall economic growth” (Republic of Ghana, 2012: foreword). According to this development plan, the government hopes to increase the number of tourists to Ghana per year from 1.45 million in 2017 to 4.32 million by 2027, while revenue from tourism is expected to increase from USD 2.8 billion to USD 8.4 billion during that same period
(Government of Ghana, 2019).
Ghana is rich in attractions such as cultural, historical, and natural resources which attract large numbers of both domestic and international tourists (GTA, 2011). Over the recent years, there has been an increasing concern to protect nature and the fragile ecosystems in Ghana. The need to protect fragile ecosystems, in addition to the demand for tourism by consumers who are seeking a different type of experience, has ignited the emergence of ecotourism into the world tourism industry to serve as a source of a sustainable form of tourism (GTA, 2011).
2.3 Ecotourism
The term ecotourism was introduced in 1983 by a Mexican environmentalist Hector Ceballos
Lascurain and was first used to describe nature-based travel for educational purposes to undisturbed areas (Kiper, 2013). Since its initial coining in the 1980s, ecotourism has become a popular and fast growing environmentally friendly segment of the tourism industry (Fennell, 2003;
Kiper, 2013; Okech, 2011). Ecotourism has several definitions depending on the organization, areas, and the approaches towards achieving sustainable ecotourism practice (Cater, 2006; Stem et al., 2003). The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) defines ecotourism as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environments and improves the well-being of local people” (Briker, 2017; Kiper, 2013:776; TIES, 1990). In their definition, TIES (1990) highlights
12 | P a g e three components of ecotourism: conservation, communities, and sustainable travel (see also,
Briker, 2017:1). Okech (2011) embraces similar components in her study on the development and challenges of ecotourism in Kenya, as she defines ecotourism as accountable travel to natural areas that protects the environment and develops the well-being of local people. In her definition, ecotourism includes three aspects: responsible travel, environmental conservation, and enrichment of the well-being of local people. Other authors such as Fennell (2003) put forth five aspects of ecotourism, which include travel to natural areas, conservation, culture, benefits to locals, and education. Donohoe and Needham (2006) include other dimensions, such as sustainability, distribution of benefits, and ethics/responsibility/awareness. Fennell (2014:14) provides a comprehensive definition by recognizing a study by TIES (1990) and Wallace and Pierce (1996) that provides a broad structure on ecotourism and expands their suggestions to include:
i. Minimize negative impacts to the environment and to local people
ii. Create awareness and understanding of an area’s natural, cultural systems and the
subsequent involvement of visitors in issues affecting those systems iii. Improve the conservation and management of legally protected and other natural areas iv. Direct economic and other benefits to local people that complement rather than overwhelm
or replace traditional practices (farming, fishing, social systems, etc.)
v. Facilitate the participation of local people in the decision-making process that determines
the kind and amount of tourism that should occur, and vi. Provision of special opportunities for local people and nature tourism employees to utilize
and visit natural areas and teach more about the wonders that other visitors come to see.
Other authors, such as Chesworth (1995) highlighted six features of ecotourism, these include:
i. Travel to relatively undisturbed natural areas and/or archaeological sites
13 | P a g e
ii. Focus on learning and good experience iii. Be economically beneficial to the local people iv. Ecotourists should seek to experience unusual and/or exotic environment as well as rare
species
v. Ecotourists should help to conserve environments and vi. Ecotourists should appreciate and respect local culture, traditions etc.
Despite the fact that ecotourism definitions vary from one author and/or researcher to another, a substantial number of researchers incorporate three key features of ecotourism namelyan emphasis on environmental conservation, provision of meaningful community participation, and economic sustainability (e.g. Briker, 2017; Chesworth, 1995; Fennell, 2014; Kiper, 2013; Okech,
2011; TIES, 1990).
Following the above discussion on the definitions of ecotourism, its practice can be perceived to be an effective tool for sustainable development; for this reason developing countries are currently embracing it and including ecotourism in their economic development and conservation strategies
(Kiper, 2013; Okech, 2011). As an alternative form of tourism, one of the goals for ecotourism is to boost local community development by establishing substitute sources of livelihood to local communities that are more sustainable (Briker, 2017; Kiper, 2013; TIES, 1990). To achieve this goal, ecotourism should also be inspired by the natural history of an area, including its indigenous and local cultures (Kiper, 2013). For instance, in developed countries, ecotourists are encouraged to participate in conservation of the wildlife and natural resources and appreciate the specific needs and the well-being of the local residents (Kiper, 2013; Okech, 2011). The host country is responsible for management and maintenance of the sites with the participation of residents. One
14 | P a g e approach where ecotourism has been successfully applied as a category of alternative tourism is through community-based ecotourism (Hyslop, 2008).
2.4 Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE)
Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE) is a form of ecotourism which involves the local communities in the organization and management of the ecotourism sites and programs (Honey,
2008; Hyslop, 2008). Weaver and Lawton (2007:1173) defines community-based ecotourism as a
“potential solution that benefits ecosystems as well as local residents through community empowerment”. CBE helps to preserve local culture, broaden knowledge, and influence environmental conservation efforts by local people. Community-Based Ecotourism is becoming increasingly popular and is a growing form of ecotourism in less developed countries (Weaver and
Lawton, 2007).
The idea behind CBE as a component of sustainable development is to create a sphere for local community empowerment by enabling them to participate in decision-making as well as to encourage their free will in participation (Scheyvens, 1999). In the case of BFMS, community- based ecotourism has been successfully implemented and seems to provide direct and indirect economic benefits to local communities (Eshun and Tonto, 2014). These benefits come through the selling of local artifacts (souvenirs), food, and tourism services – from travel, accommodation to tour guides (Field data, 2019). At the BFMS, there is also a special bond (cultural link) between the local people and the monkey species in the sanctuary. Culturally, monkeys at BFMS are perceived as forest spirits, and hence they play a unique part in conserving nature (Field data,
2019).
15 | P a g e
2.5 Ecotourism and Sustainable Development
Sustainable development through ecotourism is currently gaining attention globally. This is because ecotourism deals with development aspects covering environmental, economic, and social aspects of tourism development (Kiper, 2013). The term sustainable development was first introduced by the Brundtland Commission and defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(Brundtland Commission, 1987). Sustainable development considers social, economic, cultural, ecological, and physical limits of the area (Bhuiyan et al., 2012; Kiper, 2013). Some have criticized the term sustainable development as an oxymoron, arguing that ‘development’ and ‘sustainability’ have been subject to very different, and often contrasting, discursive interpretations (see Redclift,
2005). This is largely due to the fact that ‘development’, as originally conceived, was synonymous with modernization, economic growth, and reaching an ‘age of high mass consumption’ (Rostow,
1960). Sustainability, on the other hand, originates from the natural sciences, primarily from the areas of forestry and fisheries, and went counter to the classic development discourses as a long- term goal (a more sustainable world) (Redclift, 2018). The broad framing of ‘sustainable development’ has been subject to criticism for its vagueness and ambiguity and can often be
(mis)used as a means to various ends – whether by corporations or by communities.
Furthermore, there is also controversy concerning ecotourism and sustainable development especially concerning the distribution of economic benefits, natural resource utilisation and involvement of key stakeholders in making decisions regarding their livelihood (Cobbinah, 2017).
Walls (2007) proposed that sustainable development should include the following elements: a) maintain ecological integrity and diversity, b) meet the basic needs of humans, c) keep options open for future generations, d) reduce injustice, and e) increase self-determination
16 | P a g e
Sustainable Ecotourism Development
Socio-culture Economic Environment
Public facilities Employment Carry capacity
Local culture Revenue & Tax Animal welfare
Infrastructure Social welfare Preserve green areas
Lifestyle Equitable income Biological diversity (plants and animals)
Figure 1. Sustainable ecotourism development framework. Source: adapted from Bhuiyan et. al.’s (2012).
In Africa, sustainable ecotourism has been implemented in countries such as Kenya and
South Africa (Mbaiwa, 2002; Okech, 2011). In Ghana, environmental protection and sustainable development of natural resources has been facilitated using traditional belief systems. Awuah-
Nyamekye (2009:28) defined sustainable development from the traditional Ghanaian people’s point of view as “a mobilization of religion to ensure judicious utilization of resources (both natural and human) with the view to achieving growth and meaningful life for the present generation as well as the subsequent ones”. This definition of sustainable development from the traditional
Ghanaian perspective does not differ from the other perspectives on sustainable development by the Brundtland Commission. Both definitions agree on the scale of utilization without compromising the needs of future generations.
Bhuiyan et al.’s (2012) highlighted several key indicators of sustainable development that can be traced under the two umbrellas of ecotourism development and regional development of an
17 | P a g e area. In the context of BFMS this thesis utilizes Bhuiyan’s definition of sustainable ecotourism development (see Figure 1). Following the work of Bhuiyan et al.’s (2012) the sustainable ecotourism project at BFMS is understood as reflects the following concepts:
a) Social-cultural sustainability – the ecotourism project can be sustained if it includes the
social wellbeing of the local communities, maintaining the integrity of the local cultures,
and lifestyle. The culture and oral history can be preserved and enriched, particularly by
the elderly populations who pass them down from one generation to another. This is vital
for the future generations to get to know their history and to value their cultural practices.
When the socio-cultural aspect of ecotourism project is sustained at BFMS it may help to
preserve the forest and protect the monkey populations.
b) Economic sustainability – for the ecotourism project to run at BFMS, it needs the economic
element to be sustained. This can be in terms of how much money it can generate and
employment to the local community. If the ecotourism project generates more income it
can improve the wellbeing of the community by increasing employment opportunities (e.g.
employing more guides). Income generation of the ecotourism relates to how many visitors
they (BFMS) get per year and the entrances fees. This aspect is linked to visitors’
experience because when visitors are happy, they will revisit the site or tell stories about
wonderful BFMS to the world and this may attract more visitors. Often visitors’ stories
about their experiences will be reflected on the website as part of their review about the
site. This is critical because it may affect the sustainability of the project.
c) Environmental sustainability – this is significant because for the ecotourism project to be
sustained at BFMS it should preserve and protect natural environments. BFMS ecotourism
18 | P a g e
project depends on the monkey populations and therefore, it is essential to protect the
environment in which the monkeys live.
2.6 Ecotourism Visitor Experience
Ecotourism travel experience is attained when a visitor achieves a better understanding of unique natural and cultural environments around the world (Chan, and Baum, 2007a). In many cases, ecotourists strive to visit less crowded, isolated, wilderness areas to learn about wildlife, nature, and local cultures (Chan, and Baum, 2007a; Doniclar, Yanamandram, and Juvan, 2013;
Wight, 1996). Ecotourists experience can be characterized by the intensity of interactions between the visitor and sites (Chan, and Baum, 2007a).They often search for unique learning opportunities as part of a leisure experience, at destinations that have diverse nature and cultural resources
(Ayala, 1996; Chan, and Baum, 2007a). Other studies have shown that ecotourists desire to have high-quality guides and interpretation services (e.g. Fennell, 1999). For these reasons, ecotourism can be considered as a holistic, experience-based process (Chan, and Baum, 2007a). Ecotourism offers a diversity of products and services that can be classified as both a service and experience.
For instance, ecotourism sites such as historic houses or theme parks are mainly inspired for their experiential/emotional magnitudes, offering socio-psychological benefits to ecotourists, which is said to be very significant (Chan, and Baum, 2007a). Sociological factors such as income and socioeconomic status affect tourist behaviors but they have little impact on the quality of experience. This is because tourists’ experiences have a complex combination of factors that form the emotional responses and attitudes (Page and Dowling, 2002).
2.7 Analytical Framework
The analytical framework for measuring visitor experience was derived from a critical review of the research on visitor attraction management conducted by Leask (2016). I focused on
19 | P a g e the methods and how she identified various thematic domains in the existing literature. She classified these domains in various categories: visitor management, resource management, product management, and site management. For the purpose and scope of this study, I focused on visitor management categories as they directly relate to the visitor’s experience (Table 1). Among the visitor’s experience categorization by Leask (2016) the following themes are considered important for my study:
Visitor Profile: This involves identifying visitors’ segments and profiles such as their occupation, country of origin, age, and gender. In BFMS I explored visitors’ demographic characteristics to identify visitor profiles in relation to experiences they explored. Recent studies in Ghana revealed that most visitors from Europe and North America engaged in nature and wildlife viewing experiences (Adams et al., 2017). Some studies on ecotourists in Ghana also revealed that most ecotourists were volunteers (voluntourism) who came to Ghana with different purposes but took the advantage of their stay in Ghana to explore some ecotourism destinations in the country (Adam et al., 2017; Amuquandoh et al., 2011; Amuquandoh, 2017; Eshun et al., 2016).
Visitor motivations: It is believed that visitor travels are influenced by natural attractions and their personal connections with nature (Chan and Baum, 2007b; Eagles, 1992). Chan and Baum (2007b) argue that visitors’ travel motivations are influenced by two factors: (1) the push factors (the intrinsic factors) – these are internal factors that motivate an individual to travel to escape from normal daily city life or travel to fulfill one’s needs and wants to explore new destinations
(novelty); and (2) the pull factors (the extrinsic factors) – these are the external factors that attract an individual to travel to an ecotourism destination such as natural attractions and cultural attractions which can both be considered as destination attributes. In the case of BFMS, I investigated the visitors travel motivations by using the natural attractions as variables to measure
20 | P a g e their pull factors such as the wildlife viewing and the rainforest, and I also used their social factors as variables to measure their push factors such as escape and fulfilment (Chan and Baum, 2007b).
Visitor satisfaction: This section measures visitor satisfaction of their experience and how it impacts visitors’ intentions to recommend and plans to revisit (Leask, 2016). The variables that were used in measuring the visitor’s satisfaction levels at BFMS were based on Chen et al.’s (2011) dimensions of service quality determinants. I used feedback from visitors on services they received at BFMS based on the following: (i) service quality this includes the services a visitor receives at the Sanctuary in relation to the performance of the staff of the Sanctuary; (ii) physical environment, this involves visitors’ usage of physical facilities (guide trails, visitors information center) in relation to environmental quality. The responses from visitors were used to determine their satisfaction levels in relation to the destination. Visitor satisfaction can be in relation to factors such as infrastructure, activities, service (safety services, support services, and affordability services), sanitation, and staff performance. Adam et al. (2017) reveal that most tourists who visited ecotourism destinations in Ghana, specifically Kakum National Park and Mole National
Park were dissatisfied with the quality of service, especially with the interpretation service. It therefore impacted their intention to recommend the destinations to others and revisit the destinations (Adam et al., 2017). This knowledge is critical for managers of tourist sites, as this kind of tourism experience could be detrimental to the ecotourism industry in Ghana and thus to sustainability of ecotourism.
21 | P a g e
Table 1. A conceptual framework for measuring visitor experience.
Visitor Identifying visitor profile based on factors such as demographic
Profile characteristics, cultural differences, motivations, behaviour, and personality.
Visitor Investigating visitor motivations for visiting the destination and their relations motivations with visitor travel characteristics, behavior, experience, intention to revisit and
decision making.
Visitor Investigation of visitor satisfaction and evaluation at visitor attractions, their
Satisfaction determinants, their relationship with other factors and measuring methods.
Analyzing and measuring quality at visitor attractions and its relation to factors
such as visitor satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Source: Adapted from Leask (2016).
The above analytical framework helped me in constructing some of the questions in the interview for my data collection. It also enabled me to identify the themes in the interview data on visitors’ experience. The themes were used to analyse the interview data to provide results for visitors’ experience. The results of visitors’ experiences were discussed to draw conclusions and recommendations for sustainable ecotourism management at BFMS.
2.8 Summary
The discussion above highlights that successful ecotourism should balance between conserving natural areas, generating income for local communities, and providing satisfaction to visitors. Tourism is among the main sources of income in Ghana and hence, the improvement of this industry is essential for the wellbeing of the country. This study is aimed at investigating the ecotourism project at the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) in central Ghana. To investigate the visitors’ experience and the sustainable ecotourism management program at BFMS,
22 | P a g e my study is grounded by the three sustainability criteria established by Bhuiyan et al.’s (2012), namely socio-cultural, economic, and environmental sustainability. The overall goal is to minimize negative impacts to the environment and to local people, creating awareness and understanding of an area’s natural, cultural systems and the subsequent involvement of visitors in issues affecting those systems, and improve the conservation and management of legally protected and other natural areas. Additionally, it involves direct economic (including employment) and other benefits to local people that complement rather than overwhelm or replace traditional practices (farming, fishing, social systems, etc.). This facilitates the participation of local people in the decision- making process that determines the kind and amount of tourism that should occur.
Studies on visitors’ experiences at Ghana’s ecotourism sites show that visitors from different places other than Ghana and the African continent prefer both nature and cultural experiences (Amuquandoh et al., 2011). However, there is little evidence in the literature about ecotourists perceptions of ecotourism experiences and their understanding of the quality experiences in BFMS. More significantly, visitor’s satisfaction with their ecotourism experience is essential for its long-term success.
23 | P a g e
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes how the research was conducted. The first part of this chapter describes the researcher’s position in relation to the study area. Then the chapter moves to the research design, data collection methods including interview, participatory observation, and focus group discussion. As a case study, this chapter also highlights the sampling methods and a brief discussion on the ethical issue considered while conducting the research, data management and analysis plan. Finally, the chapter gives a detailed background on the study area.
3.2 The Researcher Positionality as Insider-Outsider
My positionality was defined by the community dynamics and the individual participants. I went back to my home community, Boabeng, from the University of Calgary for my fieldwork, with the idea that I would be an insider coming to my community for my field data.
I found that my research stance in the community influenced how the participants defined me, how groups defined me, and because of the social and political dynamics (the sensitivity of the information) of the study, I was seen both as an insider and an outsider. This experience made me reflect on what Herr and Anderson (2005) wrote on the positionality of the researcher in action research and research involving locals. I came to draw on two of their six continuums of positionality in action research and research involving locals: researcher positionality as an insider, and researcher positionality as an outsider. In applying Herr and Anderson’s (2005) principles as an insider, it involved narrations of my involvement as a community member, my connection with the local culture and traditions, my reflections of BFMS, and how my ties as a community member and a former worker of BFMS influenced my research. I applied Herr and Anderson’s (2005) principles, as an outsider, coming in from an academic background, as I investigated information
24 | P a g e that involved local capacity building and empowerment. My positionality as an outsider limited me to access some sensitive information. My involvement with the University of Calgary therefore put me in the position as an outsider in my community.
For example, during my presence at one of the Monkey Sanctuary Management Committee monthly meetings, I was identified as an outsider, “we have a researcher among us in today’s meeting from the University of Calgary, Canada” said the Chairperson of the meeting. During one of my interview sessions with an elder from Boabeng community, I was addressed as an insider and the elder said to me, “it is important for you to know information about your community, because one day all the elders now would be gone and you the young ones have to take over and protect our culture”. Also, one of my friends in the Boabeng community decided to not share information when I was around. I confronted my friend as to why he kept avoiding me; he said to me “Bright I have seen that you are now part of them [the University of Calgary research team] and I am not going to say a word when you are around”. Therefore, my positionality in the community played a critical role in choosing the case study and selecting participants for the study.
For example, choosing case studies that will not involve revealing sensitive information that may raise conflict in the community. I involved community elders in my research to make known our culture and to conserve the culture for future generations.
3.3. Research Design
This study uses an ethnographic research methodological approach to acquire information from visitors, the residents, and the staff of BFMS. This method was chosen because of its potential to produce insights of human interactions and behaviors based on their experience at BFMS
(Adams, 2012). Ethnography draws on a mixture of qualitative research techniques such as interviews, participation, observations, listening, and collaborations (Lassiter et al., 2005;
25 | P a g e
Malinowski, 1922; Marcus and Faubion, 2009). I aimed to acquire insights into the history, culture, and traditions of the local people of Boabeng and Fiema communities in relation to the protection of the forest and the monkeys, while seeking an understanding of the visitor experiences at
BFMS. This method describes the visitors’ experiences which will help to inform decisions regarding sustainable ecotourism management at BFMS.
Ethnography is the core field method of social and cultural anthropology (Ferraro,
Andreatta, and Holdsworth, 2018). At first, anthropologists used ethnography to “explore” what was then conceived as primitive cultures. Among these early anthropologists were: Franz Boas
(1858-1942) who is considered to be the father of American anthropology, Margaret Mead (1901-
1978) an anthropologist supervised by Boas, who used an ethnographic approach to explore how culture impacted the process of growing, especially in the youth in the United States (Ferraro et al., 2018), and Malinowski, who has been credited for using participant observation as an ethnographic data collection tool to explore and understand the culture of the people of Trobriand
Islands. Malinowski argued that a researcher should not only be an observer of the culture being studied in the field, but the researcher should immerse himself in the study, participate, observe, and record events happening in the field (Ferraro et al., 2018; Malinowski, 1922).
Over the last decades, a professor of tourism, anthropologist Amanda Stronza, in the United
States, elaborated on the emergence of tourism study in Anthropology (Stronza, 2001). She discussed that tourism can be an interesting area of study for anthropologists as tourism can give an opportunity to view world problems through the lens of political anthropology, economic anthropology, social and cultural anthropology, and environmental anthropology (Stronza, 2001).
In the specific aspect of management of tourism and ecotourism visitor attractions, an ethnographic research design has been less utilized, because of its requirement of gaining more insights on the
26 | P a g e behavior and interaction study of the actors than the surveys and statistical models in the quantitative methods (Leask, 2016).
3.3.1 Targeted Population
The targeted populations for this study were the visitors to BFMS, and the locals of
Boabeng and Fiema communities, which also included the staff of BFMS.
For visitors, I included both domestic (Ghanaians) and foreign (Non-Ghanaians) visitors who were between the ages of 18 years and 90 years and had participated in any of the following ecotourism activities at BFMS; monkey sighting, history listening, rainforest hiking, tree climbing, community tour, visiting traditional priest house, and purchasing local artifacts. At first, I targeted only visitors to BFMS who stayed overnight at the guesthouse. I believed that such visitors would have spent enough time at the monkey sanctuary and might have also gone through all the ecotourism activities mentioned above at BFMS. However, I found out that selecting only visitors who stayed overnight limited my sample size and the data for the research as most participants did not stayed at the guesthouse..
For the study of the community history, traditions, and culture, I included retired Ghana
Wildlife Division officers in Boabeng and Fiema communities, traditional priests from both communities, community elderly people, and individual representatives of each family line in the community. The chiefs of both communities were not directly involved in the study, but I requested them to nominate individuals who would represent chiefs in the study. I recruited individuals, mostly elderly people who had stayed in the community for over 20 years and were between the ages of 40 years and 90 years. The participants were recruited because they were knowledgeable of the history of the communities and were sometimes directly involved in performing rituals and celebrating festivals in the community. Initially, I targeted individual family heads to participate
27 | P a g e in the study. I discovered that most of the family heads were not residing in the community; some were not even staying in Ghana. I also found out, in the Akan tradition, all family heads are men, meaning, I would have collected the data from all male perspectives. So, I recruited more largely
“family representatives” which included four women.
For the focus group discussions, I targeted staff of the Monkey Sanctuary, community peanuts and banana sellers, community committee members, community assembly man, and the community’s youth representatives. Participants were individuals above the age of 18 years and below 90 years. These participants were individuals who had keen interests in the management and day-to-day activity involvement of the ecotourism project of BFMS.
3.3.2 Data Collection
I employed the following qualitative research techniques: interviews, participant observations, and focus group discussions (Malinowski, 1922; Marcus and Faubion, 2009) as research tools for collecting data from multiple perspectives such as visitors, community members, sanctuary staff and wildlife officers for the objectives of the study.
3.3.2.1 Interviews
I used two forms of interview technique, the unstructured interview, and the semi- structured interview to gain information from both visitors and community members.
The unstructured form of interviews was used to ask community participants, especially the elderly people, to tell about the history of the community. The interviews lasted for approximately 45 – 50 minutes. Each interview was conducted in the local dialect of participants,
Bono Twi one of the Ghanaian languages mostly spoken in Brong Ahafo region of Ghana. I held the interviews at individual participants’ houses on their own free time.
28 | P a g e
The semi-structured interviews were guided by specific questions but were open-ended to ensure the visitors would tell about their experiences through the activities they participated in at
BFMS (Appendix 1). I utilized a semi-structured interview guide script to obtain information from visitors at BFMS based on their experiences such as visitors’ travel motivations and visitors’ satisfaction (Leaks, 2016). Since most of the participating visitors had limited time at BFMS, I performed the interview within a 10 –15 minute time frame, except one participant, who stated he had enough time to complete a longer session. He was from the field of Social Science and wanted to know more about the community, so his interview lasted 46 minutes. The interviews with visitors were held in both English and Twi as I can only speak these two languages. The semi- structured interview guide helped me to formulate an interview script of concise and in-depth questions for answering the research objectives. The conciseness and guided nature of the semi- structured interview helped me in terms of the time management of the participants since participants had limited time at the destination. However, I also utilized the unstructured interviews with the visitors who had enough time. It allowed visitors to express their views without being limited to a specific viewpoint. While visitors expressed their views, I made sure the objective of the interviews were being addressed by visitors through guided and follow-up questions. For example, allowing visitors to comments on their satisfactions at the destination, instead of asking visitors specific questions like your satisfaction on tour guiding, trails, forest, monkeys as indicated in appendix 1.
3.3.2.2 Focus Group Discussions
The focus group discussion included individuals with different qualifications and backgrounds but who had a keen interest in the ecotourism project at BFMS. These were people such as tour guides, community committee members, Assembly members, chiefs’ palace
29 | P a g e representatives, youth representatives, community minor traders (bananas and peanuts sellers), and the Sanctuary Manager. These participants’ inclusion in the study was to capture information and ideas from different perspectives. The focus group panels and I discussed issues such as improving visitors’ experience at BFMS, highlighted some community needs, identified ecotourism potentials, development plan for the Sanctuary, more specifically including the community youth interactions with the ecotourism project at the Monkey Sanctuary, and banana sellers interactions with visitors. I did not combine participants from both communities in the group discussions because earlier information suggested that combining the groups together in one setting would probably not yield optimal conditions for discussion. The first focus group discussion was held on
September 23, 2019 at the Sanctuary sub-office in the Boabeng community involving Boabeng discussion participants. The second focus group discussion was held on October 19, 2019 at the
Fiema community town square. Both focus groups took place on neutral grounds of the participants. These measures were taken assuming that participants would express their views freely. However, participants freedom of expressions was not guaranteed as the focus group combined individuals of different status in the community and at the Monkey Sanctuary as panels.
3.3.2.3 Participant Observation
I participated in visitor group tour activities in the forest, the community, and the guesthouse at BFMS between September 2019 and December 2019. The visitor group tour activities at the monkey sanctuary took between one and two hours.
Visitor groups that spent shorter hours (one or two hours) at the Monkey Sanctuary were met at the visitor center of the BFMS sub office to be recruited in the study, while groups that spent longer hours or stayed overnight were met at the guesthouse at the main office of BFMS to be recruited for the study. I recruited various groups through the consent of group leaders. I
30 | P a g e participated in the group tourism activities together with the visitors. I observed and recorded various visitors’ activities such as feeding monkeys, climbing trees, and listening to histories at the monkey sanctuary. The observed groups consisted of both domestic and International visitors.
As well, there were some instances where an observed group consisted of only Ghanaians, only males, or a mixture of both Ghanaians and Non-Ghanaians, both males and females in a group.
3.3.3 Sampling Method
Overall, 231 participants were recruited for the study. I used three different sampling methods in recruiting participants for the study. The sampling methods included purposive sampling, snowball sampling, and opportunistic sampling methods.
3.3.3.1 Community Participants
A purposive sampling method was used to select community participants for the interview session based on participants’ knowledge on traditions and histories of both communities, and their engagement in the management of BFMS. All selected community participants have stayed in the communities for at least 20 years. Among the purposively selected participants, a snowball sampling method was used to ask the recruited participants, especially the elderly persons in both communities and family representatives, to nominate other potential participants whom they thought were also knowledgeable in this study. Primary recruiting of purposively selected participants was facilitated by a key informant, Mr. Isaac Sarkodie.
In all, I recruited 33 individuals in both communities to participate in this study. These participants included the two traditional priests of Abudwo and Daworo deities, 13 elders from both communities, three BFMS staff, five community committee members, two youth representatives, three peanut and banana sellers, two retired wildlife officers, and three representatives from both chief’s palaces. I purposively recruited 17 participants out of the 33
31 | P a g e community participants, to gather relevant information on the traditions and histories of the communities. I purposively recruited the remaining 16 participants who were community stakeholders keen to discussion concerning BFMS management, to be part of the panel members for the focus group.
The participants chosen for the focus group were involved in discussions of the management of the Monkey Sanctuary. The sampled focus group participants helped me gain insight from multiple perspectives of the cultural and managerial aspect of the Monkey Sanctuary.
The two traditional priests of both communities were recruited for the study because they are the caretakers of the Daworo and Abudwo deities. Deities are believed, by the locals, to be the mother and father of the monkeys in Boabeng and Fiema communities, respectively, so, their participation in the study was important to understand the rituals used in protecting the monkeys and the communities. Seven family representatives and five family representatives of the Boabeng and
Fiema communities, respectively, provided information on the family and lineage systems of both communities and also the roles various families in the communities play in the protection of the monkeys and maintenance of the culture and traditions of the locals. Three BFMS staff could not be overlooked as participants because of their engagement with visitors in their activities and their contributions to the management of the ecotourism project at BFMS. Five community committee members, including the assemblyman of both communities (only one assembly person represents the Boabeng and Fiema communities) were recruited for the study because they represent the community at the District Assembly level. They also constitute the management committee of the monkey sanctuary and are involved in making decisions on the monkey sanctuary operations. Two youth leaders, drawn from both communities, were recruited for the study because initial communication with some community members revealed that the youth of both communities were
32 | P a g e very critical of the protection of the monkeys and the forest. These two community youth representatives were recruited to provide me highlights on the youth engagement and interactions with the monkey sanctuary. The three peanut and banana sellers from Boabeng community were recruited for the study because they interact with visitors to BFMS by selling their products for feeding monkeys by visitors. These seller’s livelihood was dependent on whether they sold feed for the monkeys to the visitors. Two retired wildlife officers at Boabeng community who were part of the pioneers employed by the Game and Wildlife Department of Ghana in 1970 to legally protect the Monkey Sanctuary, were also interviewed. I engaged with them to gather information on how the monkey sanctuary came into existence and information of some visitors’ experience in previous years. The rest of the 13 participants were elderly people from the communities recruited to participate in the study because of their knowledge of history and traditions of the communities, because of their close proximity to the chiefs’ palaces and because of their involvement in various rituals in the communities.
3.3.3.2 Participating Visitors
I recruited 39 individual visitors who were between the ages of 18 years and 90 years and had undertaken some of the tour activities at BFMS. I used an opportunistic sampling method to recruit visitors for the study, based on visitors’ time available and their willingness to participate in the study at BFMS. I performed an open-ended interview with 39 individual visitors. I recruited these individuals in the study to gain an insight into visitor experiences at BFMS. Visitors were asked to provide their reason for coming to BFMS, provide comments, recommendations, and information of their activities at BFMS. However, 10 participants out of these 39 participants were both observed and interviewed thus adding to the number of participants observed.
33 | P a g e
I also performed participant observation with 22 different visitor groups who constitute a total of 169 participants observed. I recruited a group of visitors with the sample size between and
4 – 21; I took part in some of the visitor group tour activities and observed their behaviors and actions in relation to the setting or the environment they were in. Some visitors were both observed and interviewed at the same time. The sample participants included both Ghanaian and Non-
Ghanaian visitors. I included these individuals to establish and understand the linkage between individuals’ country of origin and the activities or experiences they opted for. The combination of both interview and participant observations helped me to gain an in-depth understanding of visitors’ activities and motivations which informed their experiences.
3.4 Community Entering and Ethics Consideration
This study received the approval of the University of Calgary’s Conjoint Faculties
Research Ethics Board with the certificate number (REB19-0927) together with the approval of the chiefs and elders of both communities, and the management of the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey
Sanctuary for the fieldwork at BFMS in Ghana. I sought formal permits from the chiefs and
Management of Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary to use the communities as my study area. This was a requirement from the University research ethics board.
I also performed the traditional way of acquiring permission for field study in the communities. I went to the chief and elders of the community’s palace to introduce myself and the purpose of this study at the community by seeking oral permission from the chief and elders and blessings from the gods of the lands. This has been the conventional way of acquiring permission of entry in local communities especially Boabeng and Fiema of Ghana for field study. This is important as to not violate the norms and regulations of the communities and to announce my presence as a researcher to the opinion leaders in the community during the period of fieldwork.
34 | P a g e
I followed ethical procedures during my field data collections at the study site. Participating in this study was voluntary; I gave out a sheet that contained the introduction of the study to proposed participants to read. This gave participants an overview of this study and what their participating in this study would help achieve. Community participants were given seven (7) days to decide whether to participate in this study. I read the introduction to most community proposed participants and translated it to the local language ‘Twi’. Proposed participating visitors were also given the introduction script to this study to read and make decisions whether to participate in the study. Proposed participating visitors to be interviewed were given about five (5) minutes to decide to participate in the study. Once a participant agreed to take part in the study, I provided a formal consent form. The consent form was translated to the local language ‘Twi’ for the domestic visitors who cannot speak and read English. Every participant interviewed was asked to sign a formal consent form and participants were permitted to withdraw from participating in the research at any time, if the participant felt uncomfortable answering the questions during the course of the interview. Participants were also allowed to decide whether to be audio recorded in the interview.
I did not take video or photos of participants in the study. This is to ensure that individuals felt comfortable in participating in the study. I took participants’ pictures2 with their permission.
However, for the participant observation I sought consent from the group leader and that the leader approached the members and gave the option to participate or not. Once a group agreed to participate in the study, I asked the leader to sign a formal consent form on the behave of the group.
To collect data from the community elderly participants, I sought permission from both the participants (the elderly person) and a third party (a close family member or their children). This is one of the measures I employed to reduce elderly participants exposed to psychological risks
2 Participants were informed that the pictures taken can be used by the researcher mostly for presentations. 35 | P a g e and potential harm such as emotional stress since their close relatives can inform them and can decide whether they should participate or not.
For the focus group discussions, in addition to the introduction script and the consent forms, I also informed the panel in the beginning of the group discussions that, “we will not be discussing any personal issues here and in signing the forms means participants agreed and will abide by that and the researcher have the responsibility to stop any discussing suspicious of personal attack to any panel in the group”. I also stated that, I cannot completely guarantee the anonymity of the members for the group discussions, therefore panel members were advised not to discuss personal information at the meeting and panel members were advised not to discuss the information outside the meeting and if possible they should consider the anonymity of panel before discussing with non-participating members. I adopted and modified a standard consent form from the University of Calgary Social Science student researchers which provides guidelines of what the information of the participants will be used for by the researcher.
3.5 Managing the Data
The interviews and conversation between the researcher and the participants were audio voice recorded with a mobile phone Techno Spark k7. I also recorded some key points into my field notes, for example when participants did not permit me to audio voice record them I also captured and documented some visitors’ actions observed at the site during the participants observation into my field notes. I assigned code names to corresponding participants information given to ensure the anonymity and confidentiality of participants’ information provided in this study. I ensured that all the materials and tools such as field books, mobile phones, and laptops used in collecting participants’ information were kept in a safe and locked cabinet to which only I had access. The electronic gadgets containing the study information, mobile phones, and laptops
36 | P a g e were encrypted from a third party, the phones and laptops were kept with high security passwords and stored in a cloud account. My supervisors will be the only third party that will have access to raw data collected in the field for analysis, verification, and discussion purposes. The keys to the assigned code participants will be only known to the researcher.
3.6 Data Analysis
Dey (1993), generalized the techniques of analyzing data into three phases: Description,
Classification, and Interconnecting phases. The description phase involves translating and transcribing (Eshun and Tonto, 2014) the interviewed data into text. In my study at this stage, I translated all my interviews recorded in Twi into the English language and I transcribed the interviews recorded into text in a separate book other than my field book. I referred to this book as a data analysis book. I did the translation and transcribing manually, this process was very tedious as it continued to pause and play action to capture relevant information from the speech to text exercise into the data analysis book. I then inscribed the corpus (group of texts) linking them to their various correspondents in the interviews, into Microsoft word documents.
The classification phase involves categorizing the corpus into themes and sub-themes
(Eshun and Tonto, 2014) using various techniques in identifying themes. I developed three major themes: visitor motivations, visitor activities, and visitor satisfactions, from Leask’s (2016) framework for visitor management. The categories expressed under each major theme were then further analyzed to generate sub-themes (Ryan and Bernard, 2003).
Ryan and Bernard (2003), describe the process in the classification phase under the broader term Scrutiny-based techniques and Process techniques. They outlined 12 theme-identification techniques of which eight were scrutiny-based techniques and four were process techniques. In my analysis I utilized five of the scrutiny-based techniques such as repetitions, similarities and
37 | P a g e differences, metaphors, transitions, or linguistic connectors and three of the process techniques such as cutting and sorting, word lists, and Key Words in Context (KWIC) (Ryan and Bernard,
2003).
Ryan and Bernard (2003) emphasize that the procedure for choosing an appropriate technique depends on the condition at hand, perhaps various techniques could work effectively under certain conditions. I chose the techniques for analysing my database on their simplicity and effectiveness. More to the point, with limited time for me to complete my thesis I considered its labor intensity and my knowledge or expertise in the use of the techniques to provide reliable and valid data (Ryan and Bernard, 2003). I employed some of the techniques to provide my sub-themes and relating expressions in the text to the major themes. For example, I combined ‘Word-based’ and ‘Word Lists and KWIC techniques by Ryan and Bernard (2003), to identify some unique words such as “excitement”, “happy”, “good”, “sad”, “disappointed”, “enlightened”, “friendly”, and “noisy” that came from visitors’ transcribed text, deduced from their expressions showed that visitors were concerned about the products and services quality at BFMS – thus provided a baseline for identifying the theme satisfaction.
I wrote some of the thoughts of respondents into my field notes during the interview process while at the same time audio-recording respondents’ information. I chose to write what I thought was important and left out what I thought was not important. [(Ryan and Bernard, 2003), referred to this scenario as "theme filter" (p.100)]. They attributed the way of producing field notes as a process of identifying themes. When I compared a transcribed verbatim text, I wrote in my field notes, to the words I picked during an interview session with the same respondent. I found
38 | P a g e out that, though the theme filter 3 is an important process in identifying my themes they are also a likely way for me to miss some important themes in my field notes.
3.7 Summary
An ethnographic method was selected because it was the best way to gain insight into visitors’ experience and determine if the experience contributes to sustainable ecotourism development at BFMS. Also, ethnography was important in the study of the culture of the locals.
The data were collected using unstructured, semi-structured interview techniques, and participant observations. The two interview techniques had weaknesses; thus, participant observation was used to support and generate information that was not captured in the interviews. The targeted population for the research were visitors, community residents, and staff of the BFMS. Purposive sampling was used to recruit both community residents and the staff of BFMS for the research interview. Snowball sampling was used to recruit community residents, especially community elders for the interview. An opportunistic sampling was used to recruit visitors for the research interview.
The data was managed by assigning codes to participants information in the field notes and putting passwords on electronic gadgets used to store participants information. The research ethics focused on participants’ willingness to participate, keep participants information, and protect the identity of participants. Data analysis was carried out using the thematic analysis for qualitative data. Interview recorded data from participants were transcribed into text and further analysed into themes.
3 Even though theme filter provides the easiest way of generating themes. However, you can leave out an important point through the theme filter process. Audio recorders prove to capture every information provided during interviews. Similarly, in my study the audio recording in my interviews captured all information necessary for my analysis while the theme filter process leave out some important information.
39 | P a g e
I thought I would be following my methodology and timetable systematically in the field, until participants kept on postponing their meeting schedules, and visitors declined to participate in the research. This left me to restructure my methodology again to fit into the itinerary of the locals and the visitors. For example I had to revisit participants for the focus group discussion 30 minutes earlier for them to be aware, and I had to trace visitors early in the morning at the guesthouse before I could get them to participate in the research. However, the latter method proved successful.
3.7 The study area: The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS)
3.7.1 Introduction
This section provides information about the present and past events of the BFMS, including the history of the Boabeng and Fiema communities, how the monkeys were discovered as well as the creation of the Monkey Sanctuary. The section also provides information on the ecological component of the BFMS, the social, political, economic structure of the communities. Information on ecotourism development at BFMS is then discussed.
3.7.2 The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS)
The study was conducted at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS). It is associated with the communities of Boabeng and Fiema, located in the Nkoranza North District (7° 43ˈ N, 1°
42ˈ W) in the Bono East Region (Formally part of Brong Ahafo Region) in central Ghana (Figure
2). The communities use local knowledge, taboos, and legal frameworks to conserve and manage forest resources and the monkey species in their community forest, which has been given the status
40 | P a g e of ‘sanctuary’4 in the Ghana wildlife protected designation (Attuquayefio and Gyampoh, 2010;
Fargey, 1992; Kankam et al., 2010; Saj et al., 2006).
Figure 2. Map of Ghana with location of BFMS study area. Source: Author produced in ArcMap 10.3.1
The Sanctuary shelters two diurnal species of monkeys, the ursine or white-thighed colobus
Colobus vellerosus (locally called ‘Afuo’), and the Campbell’s mona monkey Cercopithecus
4 Ghana Wildlife Division designate an area to be a ‘sanctuary’ based on the World Conservation Union Protected Area Management category to serve as a refuge area for wildlife that are severely threatened, abused and even harmed which required government intervention for its conservation (Kankam et al., 2010; Shea, 2014). 41 | P a g e campbelli lowei (locally called ‘Kwakuo’) (Fargey, 1991; Ormsby, 2012). The monkeys are considered sacred and taboo animals. The community has restricted access to farmland in the sanctuary, however, traditional authorities were entitled to ownership and management of the
Sanctuary with supervisory and advisory roles by Ghana Wildlife Division (Attuquayefio and
Gyampoh, 2010; detailed in section: 3.7.4.2) The sanctuary also serves as a Community-based
Ecotourism destination in Ghana, popular for community-monkey interactions.
The Sanctuary covers a forest area of 5 km2 and a core protected forest area of 1.9 km2
(192 ha) includes sacred sites5, such as the sacred groves of the Daworo shrine and the monkey burial grounds (Figure 3) (Ormsby, 2012; Saj et al., 2006; Wong and Sicotte, 2006). The Sanctuary is located in the forest-savannah transitional zone, and has vegetation that exhibits characteristics of a tropical humid forest from the South and Guinea savanna from the North, including a variety of forest trees, savanna tree species and grassy undercover (Kankam and Sicotte, 2013). The BFMS vegetation is primarily multiple and single canopy forest, with few fragments of plantation (for example teak plantations, mango trees, cocoa trees), and farmland between fragmented forest and communities (Kankam and Sicotte, 2013; Wong and Sicotte, 2006). The average annual temperature at BFMS is 26°C (Attuquayefio and Gyampoh, 2010), with daily temperatures ranging between 20°C and 34°C. Early morning temperatures are cooler than in the afternoon and the evenings during the dry season. Due to the rainforest, BFMS has moderate and serene temperature compared to other fringe communities in the district. March is the hottest month in Ghana.
BFMS is in an area that has two main seasons, the rainy season, and the dry season. The average annual rainfall in BFMS is 1,250 mm (Attuquayefio and Gyampoh, 2010). The rainfall peaks between March and June and a moderate rainfall in September. The short dry season occurs
5 Sacred sites, including sacred forests or sacred groves, are sites that have local cultural or spiritual significance (Ormsby, 2012:1).
42 | P a g e in August, followed by a prolonged and severe dry season from November to February
(Attuquayefio and Gyampoh, 2010). The next section talks about the interaction between plants
(flora) and animals (fauna) species at the Monkey Sanctuary.
Figure 3. Earth view of the core protected area and tourism features at BFMS. Source: Author produce in ArcMap version 10.3.1, Google Map, Homeport software, using Garmin GPS to collect geographical location from the field.
3.7.3 Flora and Fauna of BFMS
BFMS has high flora species density, richness, and biodiversity especially at the core protected zone which is natural forest (Wiafe, 2014). BFMS has over 63 tree species (Wiafe, 2014) including endangered tree species like Mahogany species. Some of the tree species at BFMS can be used for medicinal purposes such as Mahogany (Khaya grandifoliola), Nyame Dua (Alstonia
43 | P a g e boonei), Otie (Pycnanthus angolensis)6. Some tree species such as Dadie (Adansonia digitata),
Kyenkyen (Antiaris toxicaria), Wawa (Triplochiton scleroxylon), Dahoma-nua (Aubrevillea kerstingii), and Teak (Tectona grandis), and Akye (Blighia sapida) are also used by both the mona and black and white colobus monkeys (see also Teichroeb, Holmes, and Sicotte 2012). But overall,
BFMS has poor fauna species composition and diversity in relation to other forest sites in Ghana.
The only large mammal species with thriving populations are the non-human primate; the white- thighed colobus and the Campbell’s mona monkey (Fargey, 1991; Kankam and Sicotte, 2013;
Ormsby, 2012; Saj et al., 2006; Wong and Sicotte, 2006). The monkeys are considered as taboo animals and are forbidden to be killed by the people nor feed on them, and in combination with legal system hence, when found poaching, you will be prosecuted by the law (Attuquayefio and
Gyampoh, 2010; Fargey, 1991; Kankam et al., 2010; Saj et al., 2006).
3.7.3.1 The White-thighed colobus (Colobus vellerosus) at BFMS
The white-thighed colobus at BFMS are in the species Colobus vellerosus, one the five species of black and white colobus found in Africa (Appendix 2.1). The geographical range of C. vellerosus includes Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Benin, and Nigeria (Saj and Sicotte, 2013) and they are on the ‘critically endangered’ species, on the IUCN’s (2020) red list. At the BFMS the general name black and white colobus is used to refer to the C. vellerosus. The black and white colobus C. vellerosus population is declining throughout its range, BFMS is an exception to this declining trend (Saj and Sicotte, 2013), and makes the sanctuary an exciting location to observe this monkey in the wild (Table 2). Females C. vellerosus have their gestation period lasting approximately 6 -7 months; females typically have inter-birth intervals of 17 – 18 months (Vayro
6 According to Moses Ampofo a herbalist at the Boabeng community the Mahogany (Khaya grandifoliola), Nyame Dua (Alstonia boonei), Otie (Pycnanthus angolensis) tree species among others can be used to cure fever, malaria, and headache.
44 | P a g e et al., 2016). Infants C. vellerosus are born white coated and for the first 3 - 4 months progressively develop their black and white adult coat (Bădescu et al., 2016). It takes about 6-7 months for the baby to start feeding on its own (Saj and Sicotte, 2013). They feed mainly on leaves, fruits, seeds, and pods. The C. vellerosus has larger body sizes compared to the mona monkey, they have long white tails and black body coats with white oval shapes around their face. They prefer larger trees
(> 90 cm at breast height), where they feed, rest, travel, and sleep. (Teichroeb, Holmes, and Sicotte,
2012). They spend less time on the ground than the mona monkeys.
Table 2. Results of census of the population of C. vellerosus at BFMS.
Researchers Census No. of No. of Year individuals groups
Fargey (1991) 1990 128 8
Kankam (1997) 1996 163 10
Saj et al. (2005) 2000 200 14
Wong and Sicotte (2005) 2003 220 15
Holmes (2011 M.A. Thesis) 2010 396 29
Source: Adapted from Saj et al. (2006); Holmes (2011 M.A. Thesis).
3.7.3.2 The Campbell’s Monkey (Cercopithecus campbelli lowei) at BFMS
The Campbell’s monkey (Cercopithecus campbelli lowei) is one of the six species in the
Mona monkeys’ group (Ormsby, 2012; Stuarts and Stuarts, 2017) [Appendix 2.2]. They are considered ‘least concern’ species, on the IUCN’s (2020) red list. At the BFMS the name “Mona monkey” is used to refer to the Campbell’s monkey. The Mona monkey is an arboreal diurnal monkey with small body size and long tail constituting half of the length of its body size, the mona monkey has a streak of gray hair at the upperpart to almost dark to the lower part, a white strip
45 | P a g e layer at the forehead and whitish throat and belly (Stuarts and Stuarts, 2017). The mona has smaller body size than their neighboring black and white colobus in the forest. At BFMS, the Mona’s feed on both plant and human food such as bread, peanuts, bananas, maize, and eggs. They move in and out of people’s houses and yards to steal their foods, sometimes drink from water containers, and are involved in crop raiding at people’s farms (Fargey, 1991). Their behavior to the community members is considered a nuisance. Both monkey populations are highly concentrated at the core protected area of the Monkey Sanctuary (Figure 3).
Apart from the monkey species BFMS has approximately 375 butterfly species, including rare and endemic butterfly species to Ghana, and approximately 93 avifauna species, which is considered comparatively low in relation to forests more to the south (Larsen, Aduse-Poku, and Sáfián, 2009).
Other species include bats, snakes, mongoose, rats, and squirrels. Recently, the two monkey species have been found sheltering in other seven nearby communities’ (termed the allied communities; Figure 4). The hunting ban does not protect other animals, other than the monkeys, in the forest, resulting in less fauna diversity. The next section provides a narrative of how the people came to settle in Boabeng and Fiema.
3.7.4 The History of the People of Boabeng and Fiema
This section combines data from primary source such as narration from elders in the communities, personal communication with some members of BFMS management committee, former wildlife officers, the manager of the BFMS, and secondary data from published documents on ecotourism at BFMS.
The people of both Boabeng and Fiema communities speak Bono Twi and are classified as
Bonos, a subdivision of the Akan tribe in Ghana. Twi is a Ghanaian language credited to the people of Akan. Abonofuo is the name given to people that speak Bono Twi and they mostly occupy the
46 | P a g e
Eastern and some Western parts of the Brong Ahafo Region. The Akans’ are mostly located in the southern part of Ghana. They are considered the highest cultural composition of about 49.3% of the ethnic groups in Ghana (Agyekum, 2011; Eshun, 2010), located in the Ashanti, Brong Ahafo,
Central, Eastern, Western and some part of Volta region of Ghana as well as in the eastern part of
Ivory Coast (Agyekum, 2011).
The people of Boabeng trace their roots to the Nkoranza traditional palace. The first chief of Boabeng Nana Damoah Kwaku, was the eldest son of the Chief of Nkoranza (Nkoranzahene).
The people of Nkoranza were believed to have migrated from the Asante Kingdom to their current location. Before the arrival of the Nkoranza people, the location was occupied by the people of
Techiman. The Nkoranza people, together with their allies, the Asante kingdom, battled the
Techiman people who were defeated in the 1827 Nkoranza-Techiman war (Kankam et al., 2010).
The Techiman people moved to different locations and the Nkoranza people took over the territory.
After the war, Damoah Kwaku was granted permission to choose any suitable place at the northern part of the ‘Fia river’7 to settle his request to the father Nkoranza’s chief. Damoah Kwaku helped his father win the battle against the people of Techiman. Damoah Kwaku with his family including
Damoah Kwasi, his brother and his warriors settled at the current location of Boabeng community.
During the time of their settlement at the Boabeng community, some of the Techiman people known as the Abanase family were still occupying that location. Damoah Kwaku, with the orders from his father, decided to have the Abanase people leave the Nkoranza land. The leader of the
Abanase people pleaded to both the Chief of Nkoranza and Damoah Kwaku, to allow them to stay.
7 The ‘Fia river’ geographically marks the boundary between Nkoranza south and Nkoranza north. The Nkoranza township and the Paramount Chief’s palace is located at the southern part of the river and the Boabeng chief’s palace is located at the northern part of the river. Traditionally, the eldest son of Nkoranza Paramount Chief Boabeng chief overseas the northern territory of Nkoranza stood land, hence makes Boabeng palace one of the greatest in Nkoranza Kingdom (personal interview with Nana Michael Antwi one of elders at Boabeng community).
47 | P a g e
The chief of Nkoranza instructed them that, if he will allow them to stay there, then they will serve the Damoah Kwaku and his follower, and Damoah Kwaku will be the new chief of the location and the leader of the Abanase will serve as the chief’s linguists8 [the chief spokesman (Okyeame)].
The Nkoranza chief ordered the Abanase people to bury their stool in the ground. The stool9 in the
Akan tribe represents the chiefship, the connection with the ancestor, and the ownership of the land (stool land) therefore burying it in the ground means the chiefship position has been taken from the Abanase people.
In 1850s, other communities such as Fiema, Akrudwa, Kwaagya, Tanko, Busunya, Bonte, and Bomini settled on the Stool Land (Damoaku Stool Land) with the permission of Nana Damoah
Kwaku (Kankam et al., 2010). Bomini was established by Nana Damoah Kwasi, the brother of
Nana Damoah Kwaku, who decided to stay at the very far end to the north-eastern part of Boabeng stool land to monitor intruders who may be hunting and settling in their territory. Nana Damoah
Kwasi left some of his family at Asamankomah (former name for Boabeng community) which expended to be the current Awerempem family clan at the community. The name Boabeng came because of a royal from the palace of Nkoranza Chief threatening some individuals in the
Asamankomah community. The people fought the royal, defected him, and sent a message to the queen mother of Nkoranza, notifying her that her relative had been defected from their community.
The queen mother was shocked by the news sent to her, hence changed the name from
Asamankomah to Boabeng to symbolize the Boldness of the community. Hence, the chief of
Nkoranza was not allowed to see the Boabeng community.
8 Agyekum (2011). The chief linguists known as Nana Kyeame in the Akan language serve as the spokesman and intermediary between the chief and his subjects in royal communication. 9 The stool represents the symbol of the spirit of the ancestors and is considered sacred by the people. The Akan state, of which the ancestors constitute a part, is held sacred. All Akan chiefs possesses a symbolic stool as well as the Bono chiefs.
48 | P a g e
The people of Fiema originated from Kokofu in the Ashanti Region of Ghana (Fargey,
1991; Kankam et al., 2010). Their stay and behaviors in Kokofu were not pleasing to the people there; they were classified as law breakers (in the Akan tribe those who break the law are considered sinners and laws are considered taboos). The people committed crimes such as incest
(Fargey, 1991; Kankam et al., 2010), road robbery and were violent. Those individuals were banished from Kokofu and later accepted by the chief of Nkoranza (Nkoranzahene) (Fargey, 1991;
Kankam et al., 2010). The Chief of Nkoranza ordered his sub-chief Sesimahene to find a place for them to settle but not near the roadside. With the permission of the Boabeng chief, the banished
Kokofu people were given a place near the Boabeng community to settle (Fargey, 1991; Kankam et al., 2010). They were also given a male deity Abodwo, who disliked violence. He was to stay with the Kokofu people, to stop them from engaging in their former negative behaviour (Fargey,
1991; Kankam et al., 2010). Abodwo is believed to be the most respected and powerful deity in the
Nkoranza traditional area and the most favorable deity of the Nkoranzahene. He had helped the people of Nkoranza defeat the people of Techiman during the Asante-Techiman War. The Kokofu settlers stayed in their new location peacefully and married among their lineage and gave birth among themselves, their endogamous practice yielded their Fiema, which literally means children of the same clan or same house. In the next section I provide an overview of how the monkeys were found and why they are being protected.
3.7.4.1 The Discovery of the Monkeys
This section provides narrations on how the monkeys were discovered and protected with taboos by the community elders specifically elders associated with the chief’s palace, and the traditional priests of both communities. When the elders settled at Boabeng they were staying at a place called Adinkundron. They shared the settlement with the Bretuo family, who originated from
49 | P a g e the Asante Mampong in the Asante Kingdom. A hunter, who was a member of the Bretuo family, was in search of drinkable water. He came across a stream (the Daworo stream). Along this body of water, he saw a deity covered with white cloth, and monkeys (Black and White Colobus) in proximity to the deity. The hunter took the deity home and the following morning the monkeys were surrounding the house where the deity was kept. This made the elders in the community consult an oracle, to find out why the monkeys surrounded the deity in the house. The result that came out of the consultation was that the hunter brought home the deity and the monkeys belonged to the deity. The elders were given two options; either they send the deity back to where they found it, or they will keep it and the monkeys will stay in the village. The oracle advised, if they return the deity, misfortune will incur upon them and their descendants, but if they keep the deity, there will be good fortune to them and their descents. Also, if they keep the deity, they should make sure the monkeys are protected. They should not kill any of the monkeys and should treat the monkeys as they treat their neighbors. The elders decided to keep the deity and the monkeys and follow the instructions from the oracle.
The elders established a shrine for the deity and named the deity Daworo and the stream where the deity was found, was also named as Daworo stream which is currently the sacred grove in the forest. They appointed a traditional male priest (Daworo Bosomfuo) who is in charge of pouring libation onto the deity and a female priestess who serves as a linguist to the Daworo deity, the priestess also serves as the medium of communication between the priest and the deity. The priestess is the only person who can carry the deity to the public during an occasion or festival season. The priestess ordered the community to not kill the monkeys and they are also to protect the monkeys well, as they will have good fortune come to them, such as people travelling from all over the world to see the monkeys. Anyone who kills a monkey will incur a misfortune and
50 | P a g e mysterious death. A deceased monkey is covered with white cloth, put into a box, and buried. Only the traditional priests of the two communities performed the monkey burial at the monkey cemetery in Boabeng and Fiema communities. The white cloth used to cover the deceased monkey symbolized that the monkey is returning to the deity, because the deity discovered it covered by white cloth. The traditional priest performed libation with a local gin and prayed to the deity for the passage of life of the deceased monkeys which is termed as the monkey funeral.
Over time, the number of the monkeys grew and due to their thriving population, the Mona
Monkeys also came to stay in the forest for shelter and comfort. The population of the people in the community also started increasing and they started killing the monkeys. This began to decrease the population of the monkeys, so the elders put a hunting taboo on the monkeys within the
Boabeng and Fiema communities. This helped the population of the monkeys thrive again.
In 1965, some individuals in the Fiema Saviour Church community decided to challenge the authority of the traditional elders. They believed the monkeys were property of the commons and they were created by God, not any deity, so the Saviour Church members decided to kill the monkeys. The next section highlights some of the events that happened between the Fiema Savior
Church and the traditional elders which led to the creation of the Monkey Sanctuary.
3.7.4.2 The Creation of the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary
The information provided in this is a summary of my personal interview with an anonymous community elder who was directly involved in the conflict between the Savior community and Fiema community. Also, I use references from a previous study on the creation of
BFMS such as Fargey, (1991); Kankam et al., (2010).
The creation of BFMS started when the Fiema Savior Community Church objected to the traditional beliefs and taboos of the Fiema community. The Fiema community is where another
51 | P a g e deity Abudwo (male) is located. Abudwo deity is believed to be the most respected, powerful, and strongest deity in the Nkoranza Traditional Area, thus making the Chief of Nkoranza the favorite deity. Therefore, when one is elected to be the traditional priest of Abudwo, that person inherits a prestigious position not only in Fiema but also in the Nkoranza Traditional Area. The late
Abudwo’s traditional priest, Nana Kwaku Daworo, championed the enforcement of the hunting taboo and the protection of the monkeys, especially the Black and White Colobus. When one breaks a taboo, the traditional elders ensure the individual is punished.
Some members of the Fiema Savior Community Church, out of annoyance, started breaking the taboos; going to the stream on Wednesdays to fetch water which was forbidden, and also started killing the Monkeys, especially the Black and White Colobus, just to provoke the late
Abudwo priest. Their justification for breaking the taboo was that they are of the Christian faith and they believe everything was created by God and not the deities. Therefore, they were going to continue to kill any animal and fetch the water at any time they wanted to. They also stated that if they believed the monkeys were the children of the deities, the deities should incur their anger on them (Kankam et al., 2010).
When the Fiema elders found out that the people of the Savior Church were not obeying the rules, they started assaulting them. Conflict arose between Savior Church and the elders of
Fiema communities, which lasted over three years. The Fiema Savior Community, with the help of other Fringe Savior Communities, reported the conflict to the police and Nkoranza court of justice. The Fiema elders were charged with assault to the entire people of Fiema Savior
Community including a pregnant woman. The police arrested five Fiema elders including the traditional priest of Abudwo (Nana Kwaku Daworo). This caused the involvement of the Chief of
Nkoranza, Conservation Education Officer of the Department of Game and Wildlife, Mrs. V.A.
52 | P a g e
Sackey, District Chief Executive (DCE) of Kintampo/Nkoranza District Council (Kankam et al.,
2010), the general head of the Savior Church and other local help to settle the ongoing conflict in the communities. It is believed there should not be any circumstance that the Abudwo traditional priest should be arrested. The Chief of Nkoranza, the DCE, and some locals, like the late D.K.
Akowuah (local conservationist), made an appeal to the government of Ghana through the
Department of Game and Wildlife. The Game and Wildlife advised the chiefs to establish their own by-laws and set aside land that will be free from farming activities for the protection of the monkeys. The various family clans in the Boabeng and Fiema communities gave out their lands and created by-law for the protection of the monkeys. The Department of Game and Wildlife provided technical advice and personnel to enforce the by-laws, thus given the status of a Sanctuary in both communities for the protection of the abused monkey species (Kankam et al., 2010). The general head of the Savior Church then advised his followers that the monkeys now had become the government property so anyone who killed them would be banished from the Savior community and would face legal charges.
Mr. John Mahama was the first Wildlife Officer to be posted at BFMS by the Department of Game and Wildlife to provide technical support to the late D.K. Akowuah and other natives from the Boabeng and Fiema communities. They were appointed to build the local capacity for wildlife protection and management. The next section emphasizes the socio-political organization of Boabeng and Fiema communities.
3.7.5 The Social Structure of the Boabeng and Fiema Communities
Boabeng and Fiema are communities whose inhabitants are highly connected with each other, for example socializing with their neighbours regularly, sharing their food together, sharing some space together, and even walking into each other’s homes without informing them earlier.
53 | P a g e
In the Boabeng community the chief (Boabenghene) is given the highest authority in the community and has custody of the Boabeng stool land (nnkodwasaase). The traditional priest
(Daworo Bosomfuo) is second to the chief, followed by the queen mother. In the Fiema community the traditional priest (Abudwo Bosomfuo) is given the highest authority in the community, therefore holds the custody of the gods (bosom) stool land (nnkodwasaase). Second to the traditional priest in the Fiema community is the chief (Fiemahene). This system is different in the context of
Boabeng community.
The family system in the Boabeng community consists of eight individual different family clans: the Abanase, Abuakwa, Afiatiase, Atwea, Awerempem, Bretuo, Damase, and Sesedom, and. Individual clans have their family heads (Abusuapanin) and family chiefs [(Abusuahene) forms the sub-chiefs (Ahenfo-nketewa) of Boabeng communities]. The family heads oversee the safety of the family properties such as lands and funeral rites of their family members. Boabeng, specifically the family heads, are the ones who agreed to provide some portions of their land to the protection of the monkeys. The Chief of Boabeng belongs to the Abuakwa family clan and the
Daworo priest belongs to the Bretuo family clan. The Abanase family chief serves as the linguist of the Boabeng chief. The Daworo priest serves as the mediator between the community and the goddess for protection and thanksgiving, during occasions like the Daworo Yam Festival.
Unlike the Boabeng family clan, the Fiema community consists of nine family heads.
Everyone is connected to their family through the family head (Abusuapayin). The family heads in the Fiema community do not form sub chiefs of Fiema chief palace. The Chief of Fiema, together with the family heads, support the traditional priest of Abudwo during occasions like the
Abudwo Yam Festival. The Chief of Fiema can become the traditional priest of Abudwo which is different in the context of the Chief of Boabeng and the traditional priest of Daworo. Individuals
54 | P a g e who do not belong to any of the eight-family clan in Boabeng or any of the nine family heads in the Fiema community, they are considered a stranger no matter how long the person had stayed in the community. However, a stranger can become part of the community through marriage with a member from a clan.
Both communities have different deities Daworo female goddess of Boabeng community, and Abudwo male gods of Fiema community. The people believe that these deities oversee the protection of monkeys. The people also believe that there is a spiritual relationship between
Daworo female goddess and Abudwo male goddess and that the monkeys are children of these two deities, the black and white colobus, locally called Afuo, belong to Abudwo and the mona monkeys, locally called Kwakuo belong to Daworo. The next section emphasizes the demographics and economic activities of communities, and their implication on the physical environment.
3.7.6 Demographics, Economic Activities, and their Implication on the Physical Environment
The population of Boabeng and Fiema communities is about 4,060 individuals representing about six percent of the district’s total population of 65,895 individuals [(Ghana Statistical
Services (GSS), 2012)]. The Fiema community has a population of about 2,700 individuals, while
Boabeng community has a population of about 1,360 individuals. It is observed that the population and household size of Fiema has doubled in size between 1965 and 1990 (Saj et al., 2006). Studies shown that the Christianity is the dominant religion of 80 percent, followed by Traditionalists of
11 percent, Muslims of six percent and few non-believers of three percent (Attuquayefio and
Gyampoh, 2010; GSS, 2012).
55 | P a g e
The economic activities of most people (approximately 80%) in Boabeng and Fiema communities is agriculture10 which provides a source of income for communities’ households11 livelihood. While others (14%) of the communities’ populations are engaged in other activities such as tour guiding, shop owners, crafts, teachers, and drivers, the remaining six percent are unemployed (see also Attuquayefio and Gyampoh, 2010).
The communities have good climate which supports agriculture production, it allows the locals to apply less effort, less mechanized systems and mostly use their household in the agricultural processes. The communities have attached a strong cultural belief to their agricultural processes such as attaching the cultivation and harvesting of yam to celebrate and perform rituals to the gods of the communities. The yam is cultivated in the beginning of the rainy season, late
April, and harvested in late August and early September. The chiefs and the traditional priest make sacrifices to the gods of the land for protection and provisions of food for them hence the name
Yam Festival also called Munufie Festival (GSS, 2012). Munufie Festival is celebrated by most rural communities in Nkoranza traditional area. It can be celebrated any Friday of the month of
October to December. The festival date is community-specific, based on the traditional calendar prepared by the Nkoranza Sesema chief. The next section shifts the discussion from implications of anthropogenic activities to the impact of seasonal changes.
10 Community agricultural activities include crop farming (maize, yam, groundnuts, cassava), animal rearing (pig, sheep, poultry), cash crops (mangoes, cashews), and tree plantations (teak). 11 In this context, household is defined as ‘people who eat in the same kitchen – household heads can be the father or grandfather sometimes or the mother or grandmother who provide for the family.
56 | P a g e
3.7.7 Seasonal Changes Impact at BFMS
Over the past 50 years Ghana has experienced an increase in mean annual temperature by
1.0°C, at an average rate of 0.21°C per decade since 1960 and changes in rainfall patterns with an average precipitation of 2.3mm per month (2.4%) per decade, leading to climate change
(Wutenbeger, Bunzeck, and Tilburg, 2011; World Bank Group, 2020), hence, causing recent temperature rise and rainfall change pattern of the microclimate of the BFMS. The recent changes in the microclimate of the BFMS have impacted the locals’ livelihoods, the monkey’s behavior, and ecotourism activities.
The people in the communities fringing BFMS are mostly subsistence farmers and depend on the raining season for most of their farming activities. However, over time, they have gradually shifted to charcoal production and hunting due to climate change associated with the decrease in rainfall leading to poor and low harvest of farm products. The community’s response to the poor harvest created a low tension as they believe their farmland is being used for the protection of monkeys. The increase in population has increased the pressure of land use, such as land for farming, charcoal production, firewood, timber, or chain saw operators, hunters, expanding settlements, palm wine tappers, bush fires, and church services. These activities pose higher risk to the survival of the forest and the monkey species in the Sanctuary (see also Kankam, 2010). In recent years, the elders of the communities encountered 16 individuals from different communities outside the district involved in poaching activities in the BFMS (fieldwork interviewed with community elder, 2019). In early January 2020 (peak of dry season) because of bushfire, about 20 percent of the sanctuary forest cover burnt, including some part of the core protected area. The fire started from the north-east of the BFMS around Fiema and Bonte area and went through Akrudwa
57 | P a g e to Boabeng. It affected the monkeys, since they depend mainly on the forest resources such as leaves, fruits, and pods of trees and the tree itself for shelter.
The monkeys’ diets, especially that of the black and white colobus, consists of 70 percent leaves (Saj and Sicotte, 2013). The mona monkeys have a more generalized diet, and some groups depend – or at least receive – food from visitors and the community. Both monkeys get their source of drinking water from the Daworo stream, and water left in tree branches from rainfall. Local reports indicate that in the recent years, there are changes in seasonality and prolonged drought in the dry season that is gradually influencing the behavior of the monkeys. Annual seasonality has always impacted the diet of the colobus monkeys, who focused on leaves in the wet season and included seeds, pods, and unripe fruits in the dry season (Saj and Sicotte, 2013). It seems that there are more severe dry seasons in recent years, that cause the trees to shed more of their leaves, therefore, reducing food resources for the monkeys. Increasing food scarcity results in increasing aggressiveness of both colobus and mona monkeys within and between their groups for survival.
The source of water for the monkeys dries up during the dry season, leaving the monkeys with a limited water source. This results in some monkeys being forced out of the monkey groups to a different forest fragment. During the 2019 dry season, the Black and White Colobus which are more reserved when it comes to interacting with humans, were found drinking water from the containers at the BFMS sub office and also beneath the forest at the chief palace in Boabeng community.
This study was not able to provide data on deceased monkeys in the previous years.
However, the study reported on data of deceased monkeys in the year 2019 during the fieldwork.
In 2019 at BFMS 54 monkeys (both colobus and mona) were found dead and have been buried by the traditional priest (see Table 3). It is obvious that figures presented in the table below shows
58 | P a g e that in the month January, December, February, and November monkey deaths were higher. This can be attributed to the fact that within these months the dry season occurs in Ghana (see Section:
3.7.2) and the month of September had low (zero) number of monkey death. However, the data presented in this study is not sufficient to prove that prolong drought in the dry season is the major cause of death in monkeys12 at BFMS, therefore there is the need of long-term monitoring of seasonality on monkey’s mortality.
The seasonality has an impact on the ecotourism activities; for example, the visitors take advantage of monkeys having limited food during the dry season for monkey viewing as the visitors are provided food to feed the monkeys. However, the Mona monkeys may aggressively jump onto visitors with food and grab it from visitors in a quick manner; this sometimes leads to a bite or scratch on the visitors’ hands or body. During the dry season, the visitors can sight monkeys from afar on a tree as the canopy is open. During the rainy season, there are a lot of leaves available in the forest, so the monkeys do less interaction with the visitors – and visibility is lowered because of the leaf cover. Visitors sometimes do not see the monkeys, especially the black and white colobus, as the monkeys stay in the dense canopy because the ground gets wet. The road to BFMS is not asphalt, therefore visitors without a good 4x4 car and not familiar with the road will probably get stuck when it rains (Appendix 2.3). This slows the activities of visitors at
BFMS. The next section provides an insight on the development of the ecotourism program and its implications for the BFMS.
12 According to Nana Brenya one of the traditional priests in charge of monkey burial specifically in the Fiema community stated that the mona monkeys appear to die frequently than the colobus monkeys in both dry and rainy season at BFMS. He also added that, the sanctuary management pay 15 Ghana Cedis (Ghana currency) equivalent to 3.41 Canadian Dollars per each monkey burial, that is used to purchase materials for rituals (pers. Coom. With Nana Brenya of Fiema community).
59 | P a g e
Table 3. Number of buried monkeys at BFMS in 2019.
Month Total Mona Monkey Colobus Monkey
January 11 8 3
February 7 5 2
March 7 6 1
April 3 0 3
May 2 1 1
June 2 0 2
July 4 3 1
August 3 1 2
September 0 0 0
October 3 3 0
November 4 3 1
December 8 5 3
Total 54 35 19
Source: BFMS Management document (2019).
3.7.8 The Ecotourism Program at BFMS
It is noted that the population of monkeys has been increasing since the sanctuary was created in 1970. Due to these growth of monkey populations, the sanctuary gained international recognition and attention in local participation of monkey conservation (Saj et al., 2006). An ecotourism program was established to serve as an incentive to communities for protecting the monkeys and their forest habitat.
60 | P a g e
After the establishment of by-laws, the Department of Game and Wildlife, together with the chiefs and elders collaborated with institutions and individuals to enhance conservation interest. They assisted and provided their skill in the community conservation outreach and capacity building on monkey species and habitat conservation. An additional three locals were employed by the Game and Wildlife Department making an overall six individuals employed, who were all from the Boabeng, Fiema, and Akrudwa communities.
In the 1990s, the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary Management Committee (BFMSMC) was established as a result of community capacity building. The BFMSMC aided the Wildlife
Officers and served as negotiators between the local communities, Ghana government, and the environmental development organizations. A researcher from North America, Pat Fargey, the
Wildlife Officer, and guide, the late D.K. Akowuah, in collaboration with the BFMSMC and the chiefs and elders, extended the size of the forest and created a boundary line of BFMS. The boundary line was to protect the Sanctuary from intruders and farming activities. The Wildlife
Officer, the BFMSMC, and the community’s chief proposed an establishment of an ecotourism program at BFMS.
In 1990, the BFMS ecotourism program was unofficially established (pilot stage) under the leadership of the late D.K. Akowuah (the first community member to become wildlife officer at BFMS). The late D.K. Akowuah and the Wildlife Guides created tourist trails in the forest, planted mango trees and bananas in the forest close to the settlement for the monkeys to be available for visitors or tourists. The Wildlife Guides created a burial ground for the monkeys to serve as a visitor attraction for tourists. At the pilot stage, the late D. K. Akowuah’s house was used to provide an accommodation for visitors to BFMS to sleep overnight and a place to keep poachers who violated the by-laws.
61 | P a g e
In 1996, the United Nations Global Environment Development Fund (UNGEDF) provided funds to build a guest house (Eshun, 2014) for visitors who stay overnight, hence marking the official beginning of the ecotourism program at BFMS. The Wildlife Officers oversaw protecting the forest and monkey species, managing the ecotourism program, and revenue collection and distribution (Eshun, 2014).
Between 2002 and 2004, BFMS was elected among the five Community-Based Ecotourism
(CBE) sites to benefit from the USAID Community-Based Ecotourism development project in
Ghana, and under the initiative of the Nature Conservation Research Centre (NCRC) (Eshun,
2014). The project was to strengthen the conservation effort of the communities at BFMS. The project was linked to the construction of an interpretative room, furniture, directional signs, rest room, safety equipment and refuse bins at the Monkey Sanctuary (Eshun, 2014). The project also provided toilets for some individuals in the community. The project was to ensure an effective distribution of revenue from the ecotourism program to all stakeholders involved in the conservation of monkeys and the forest (Chiefs, traditional priest, District Assembly, Ghana
Wildlife Division, Boabeng and Fiema communities, and other seven allied communities).
In 2005 seven other communities Busunya, Bonte, Bonimi, Akrudwa Panyin, Akrudwa Kuma,
Konkrompe and Senya known as the allied communities (Figure 4), were added to the revenue sharing at BFMS (Eshun, 2014; Kankam, et al., 2010). The NRCR created a scheme to facilitate the sharing of revenue. The allied communities were added because some of the monkeys were found in their forests (Eshun, 2014).
62 | P a g e
Figure 4. Map of Nkoranza North of Ghana showing the allied communities of BFMS. Source: Author produced in ArcMap 10.3.1.
The government of Ghana, in 2004, initiated a project to build the literacy rate with the youth on Information Technology at BFMS therefore sought to build an Information
Communication Technology (ICT) center near the guest house; the project is still incomplete. In
November 2019, the Sanctuary management committee decided to convert the ICT building to a research center. This is to improve research potentials of the sanctuary and to provide a comfortable place for researchers as they sometimes compete with visitors for space. In December
2019, the District Chief Executive of Nkoranza North District ordered the Sanctuary management not to work on it since it is a government project. Therefore, the project has remained incomplete for about 16 years. In 2008, the BFMSMC took full control over revenue collection and
63 | P a g e distribution from the Wildlife Division. The Wildlife Guides were to only protect the forest and the monkeys and not anything related to tourism activities.
The ecotourism program has contributed significantly to the increase of the monkey population (Kankam et al., 2010). The number of visitors to BFMS has increased significantly, thus increasing the revenue of the Sanctuary over time. Funds from the revenue generated from the ecotourism program are used to subsidize the community water fees, supporting local school fees, building a sub office, and maintaining tourism facilities (pers. comm. with BFMS Manager,
2019). The ecotourism program also serves as a source of income and employment opportunities.
The local community members complained about the ecotourism program, as the direct benefit is not distributed equally.
In 2018 the management of BFMS established a new scheme for sharing the annual revenue to various stakeholders. They also have changed the organizational structure of BFMS, expanding the employment and volunteerism in the management committee, and Board members.
In 2019, the revenue generated from 2018 was distributed according to the scheme provided by the authority. Five percent of the revenue generated was used for supporting the education of six youth in the communities, renovating the guest house and the sub-office, supporting the maintenance of the community pipe born water, and providing path access for some areas at Fiema community (pers. comm. with BFMS Manager, 2019). BFMS management has proposed a future project to construct a research facility to target the research potential of the site. BFMS currently has 12 employees, consisting of six tour guides, two caretakers, one manager, a cleaner, laborer, and a security guard.
64 | P a g e
3.7.8.1 Visitor Numbers, and Revenue at BFMS
There has been a fluctuation in the number of visitors at BFMS from 2009 to 2019, where
2009 recorded the highest number of visits of 18,115 individuals and 2017 recorded the lowest of
8,842 individuals (Figure 5). This is also reflected on the amount of revenue generated in 2009
GHS 31,028 to GHS 125,347 in 2019 (Figure 6). My data from interview with the BFMS manager showed that the management of the sanctuary increased the amount of entrance fees in 2018 of an average of 60 percent from 2016 to 2018 (Table 4). Therefore, even though they received less individuals they had more revenue generated (pers. comm. with BFMS manager and some staff
2019).
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
Numbers Numbers visitors of 2000
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Years
Ghanaian Non-Ghanaian
Figure 5. Visitors numbers at BFMS from 2009 – 2019. Source: BFMS management document.
65 | P a g e
Table 4. Percentage increase of entrance fees at BFMS from 2016 – 2019.
Category 2016/17 fees 2018/19 fees* Increase (%) Amount (GHS) Amount (GHS)
Ghanaian Adult 10 20 100 Tertiary 5 10 100 SHS** 2 5 150 JHS** 2 3 50 Primary 1 2 100
Non-Ghanaian Adult 30 50 67 Student volunteer 25 35 40 Children Under 12 years 10 25 150 Accommodation (General) 30 50 67 * The fees increment for 2018/19 was meant to be updated in the beginning of 2020, however those fees are still in-effective. ** SHS – Senior High School; JHS – Junior High School. GHS represent Ghana’s currency called Cedis (Source: BFMS Management document, 2019). 1 CAD = 4.38 GHS.
Ghanaian visitors: From the data in figure 5, we can see that there is a fluctuation in the number of Ghanaians visitors from 2009 to 2019. What is interesting in this data is that there is a sudden drop of the number of Ghanaians visitors in 2017 and 2018, the number starts to rise again in 2019.
The decrease of visitation to BFMS in 2017 can be linked to the closure of the Kintampo Waterfalls for maintenance and further investigations by the Ministry of Tourism, Art, and Culture and Ghana
Tourism Authority for nine months because of a large tree that fell into a swimming area, killing
20 people at the waterfalls. This is because the Kintampo waterfalls is within the same region
(Bono East Region) as BFMS. Moreover, data from my interview with the BFMS manager revealed that most of the Ghanaians visitors like to combine the waterfall experience from
66 | P a g e
Kintampo and monkey viewing at BFMS. Therefore, the Kintampo Waterfalls play a great role to motivate Ghanaians tourists to visit BFMS.
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
Amounts (GHS) 40000
20000
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Years
Revenue Figure 6. Revenue generated from Visitors entrance fees at BFMS from 2009-2019. Source: BFMS Management document, 2019.
The monthly distribution of visitors to BFMS for the period 2009 to 2019 shows that on average the month with the highest number of Ghanaians visiting was March (Figure 7). Ghanaians tend to visit BFMS in the months of March and July, a pattern that can be attributed to two Ghana national holidays the Independent day on March 6th and the Republic holiday on July 1st (per. comm. with tour guide of over 12 years’ experience at BFMS).
67 | P a g e
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800
Numbers 600 400 200 0
Months
Ghanaians Non-Ghanaians
Figure 7. Average monthly distribution of visitation numbers to BFMS from 2009 – 2019. Source: BFMS Management document, 2019.
Non-Ghanaian visitors: In terms of months (figure 7), results show that on average non-Ghanaian visitor numbers at BFMS tend to be highest in July. The high visitation of non-Ghanaian to BFMS in July can be attributed to the presence of international student volunteers often called
“voluntourists” who travel to Ghana for study and volunteer activities during the summer break.
This data is significant because it can help local enterprise within the tourism industry to target their clients once they know the peak of visitation. It also helps management of visitor destinations to make decisions that meet visitor demands and control visitor activities. For example, when the manager of BFMS studied the trends in previous visitations in December at BFMS, he found out that visitation was high on December 26 to 27 and that visitors were not able to see monkeys in the afternoon. This was because a lot of visitors fed the monkeys earlier. In 2019 December 26 to
27 the manager of BFMS, upon previous experience, regulated the number of bananas visitors sent to the forest and visitors were able to see the monkeys throughout their visit.
68 | P a g e
3.7.8.2 Tourist Directions to BFMS
The nearest International Airport to BFMS is the Kotoka International Airport [(KIA) also known as ACC for international travelers] located in the national capital of Ghana West Africa,
Accra. KIA is about 240 Km (9 hours 45 minutes drive) to the north on Accra-Kumasi highway
(Highway directions and distance were taken from google map). The two nearest municipalities to BFMS are Techiman (popular tourist route) and Nkoranza, all in the Bono East Region of
Ghana. Techiman is about 65 km (40 minutes drive) from Nkoranza on the Techiman-Nkoranza highway. Nkoranza to BFMS is about 22 km [(Wong and Sicotte, 2006) 30 minutes drive] to the north, on the Nkoranza-Kintampo highway. Half way through the Nkoranza-Kintampo highway, about 15 minutes, there is a small community called Tanko, there you branch to your right towards the northeast for about four kilometers and 15 minutes later you reach the Boabeng community where the ecotourism activities occur. The immediate road from Tanko community to
Boabeng community is an earth or untarred road, very dusty and it will not be comfortable to drive on a rainy day.
69 | P a g e
CHAPTER FOUR: VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM
DEVELOPMENT AT BFMS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the research findings on visitors’ experiences and an evaluation of the sustainable ecotourism project at BFMS. In terms of the visitor experience, this chapter discusses the findings related to visitor profiles, motivations, activities, and satisfactions (Leask,
2016). The sustainability of the ecotourism development project at BFMS is presented using the three indictors proposed by Bhuiyan et al.’s (2012). These indictors include socio-cultural, economic, and environmental sustainability.
4.2 Description of Visitor Profile
This section describes the characteristics of visitors who participated in the study. A total number of 198 visitors participated in the research. Out of the 198 visitors , 159 (approximately
80%) of them were observed only in terms of their presence within one of 22 different groups;
29 (approximately 15%) out of 198 visitors participated only in one-on-one interviews, and ten
(approximately 5%) of them participated in both group observation and one-on-one interviews.
The study included both domestic and international visitors. The domestic visitors were Ghanaians who traveled to BFMS for an ecotourism experience. The International visitors were individuals who were not from Ghana and had traveled to Ghana, specifically to BFMS, to have an ecotourism experience. The visitor profile was further divided into three main segments: visitor social demographics, visitor trip characteristics, and visitor pre-trip information.
70 | P a g e
4.2.1 Visitor Social Demographic Characteristics
Visitors’ social demographic characteristics considered were age, gender, occupation, and visitors’ origin (see Table 3). Visitors’ who participated in the study ages13 were classified as youth, which constituted of about 70 percent of participating visitors, mature age which constituted of about 24 percent of participating visitors and the retired (senior) age, which constituted of about six percent of participating visitors in this study. The youth age ranges from 18-30 years, the mature age ranges from 31-59 years and the retired or aged ranges from 60-89 years, visitors below
18 (minor) and above 90 (elderly) years were not recruited as participants.
The male participants were 52 percent, consisting of 102 individuals, and the female participants, 48 percent consisting of 96 individuals. Out of the 102 male participants, 20 were interviewed, while 82 males were observed; out of the 96 female participants, nine of them were interviewed and 87 were observed. Six of the male participants were both observed and interviewed while four of the female participants were both observed and interviewed (See Table
4 for profile of visitors interview only).
Participants’ occupations were broadly categorised into Ghanaian students (42), student volunteer for international participants (36), Church groups (38), and the working group (54) consisting of the following; public servants or government workers, (4), worker volunteer also for international participants (1), teachers (8), professors/researchers (10), health workers, nurses and doctors (18), banker (1), engineers (5), retired (11), self-employed (1), and professional sport persons (6). Nineteen participants preferred not to mention their occupation (see Table 5).
13 Classification of participants ages were based on the methods I used especially in the participants observation. I did not ask every participant in the groups age, but it was obvious for me to distinguish a participant of a youthful age from a participant from a mature age and distinguish from an aged/senior. Thus, led to large interval and uneven distribution of visitor ages I presented. Also, I assumed that mostly students fell within the ranges of 18-30 years and are mostly youth, mostly individuals of working groups fell within the ranges of 31-59 years are mostly mature, and mostly retired workers fell within the ranges of 60-89 years and were mostly aged/seniors.
71 | P a g e
Visitors who participated in the study comprised of 120 individuals (61%) residing in
Ghana; international visitors who participated in the study comprised of 75 individuals (38%) residing in any country other than Ghana, including participants from other African countries (3 individuals), Europe (56 individuals), America (12 individuals), North America (4 individuals),
Asia (2 individuals), and Oceania (1 individual).
Table 5. Profile of participating visitors at BFMS. Visitors Profile No. Percentage (Individuals) (%) Participants Observed 159 80.3 Interviewed 29 14.7 Observed and Interviewed 10 5.0 Total 198 100
Gender Male 102 52 Female 96 48 Total 198 100
Age (years) Youth (18 – 30) 139 70 Mature (31 – 59) 48 24.4 Aged/Senior (60 – 89) 11 5.6 Total 198 100
Occupation Students 78 39.4 Church groups 36 18.1 Working groups (actively employed) 54 27.3 Retired 11 5.6 Unstated occupation 19 9.6 Total 198 100
Visitors origin Ghanaians 120 61 Europeans 56 28 North Americans 16 8 Other Africans (non-Ghanaians) 3 1.5 Asians 2 1.0 Oceania (Australian) 1 0.5 Total 198 100 Source: BFMS fieldwork 2019
72 | P a g e
Table 6. Profile of Visitors Interviewed at BFMS. Visitors Profile Ghanaians Non-Ghanaians No. Percentage (Individuals) (%) Gender Male 17 9 26 66.7 Female 5 8 13 33.3 Total 22 17 39 100
Age (years) Youth (18 – 30) 9 8 17 43.6 Mature (31 – 59) 13 8 21 53.9 Aged/Senior (60 – 89) 0 1 1 2.5 Total 22 17 39 100
Occupation Students 5 8 13 33.3 Church groups 6 0 6 15.4 Working groups 10 5 15 38.5 (actively employed) Retired 0 1 1 2.5 Unstated occupation 1 3 4 10.3 Total 22 17 39 100
Visitors origin Males Females No. Percentage (Interviewed) (Individuals) (%)
Ghanaians 17 5 22 56.4 Europeans 9 4 13 33.3 North Americans 0 3 3 7.7 Oceania (Australian) 0 1 1 2.6 Total 26 13 39 100 Source: BFMS fieldwork 2019
73 | P a g e
4.2.2 Visitor Trip Characteristics
Visitor trip characteristics focused on the duration spent at destination because of its link with visitors’ satisfaction at BFMS. Again, visitor trip characteristics focused on the gender of individuals who stayed at the guesthouse to help management target specific gender groups in terms of recreational facilities development at the guesthouse. The study found that on average most of the participants spent approximately one hour and 15 minutes in their tour activities. Forty- one participants stayed overnight at BFMS guesthouse; they all spent one night except one participant who spent two nights at the guesthouse; 24 of them were females, and 17 of them were males (Table 7).
Table 7. Number of participants who stayed at the BFMS guesthouse
Country Females Males Total
Ghana 1 5 6
Germany 8 3 11
France 6 4 10
Ireland 3 2 5
Canada 2 2 4
USA 2 • 2
UK 1 • 1
Australia 1 • 1
Finland • 1 1
Total 24 Females 17 Males 41 Participants
Source: BFMS fieldwork 2019
74 | P a g e
4.2.3 Visitor Pre-trip Information
Thirty-nine (39) visitors were interviewed regarding their pre-trip information (Table 6).
The visitor’s pre-trip information considered in this study includes source of initial information, pre-contact for information, and navigational source to BFMS.
The results of the study show that participant sources of initial information (e.g. how did they get to know about the destination) about BFMS were obtained through: (i) individual recommendations including word-of-mouth (e.g. from a friend, a family relative or a teacher), travel and tour operators, and other tourism destinations, (ii) media from sources such as television documentaries, and the internet (BFMS website), and (iii) printed documents such as paper map, and travel guidebooks. Out of the 39 participants, 54 % (N=21) acquired their information through individual recommendations, 33% (N=13) through media, and 13% (N=5) through printed documents.
Participants’ pre-contact information (e.g. how did they make reservation or enquiries) about BFMS was acquired through: phone call, Facebook messenger, and Email address. Results from interviews showed that 74 % (N=29) of participants did not acquire pre-contact information for their trips, while only 26% (N=10) made a pre-contact information from BFMS management prior to their trip. Among the visitors who acquired pre-contact information, three were able to make successful enquiries through phone call, while seven participants claimed that they called the phone number on the BFMS website and sent emails but they got no feedback. For the three visitors who were able to make successful phone calls for enquiries they stated the following: “I got the phone number from the guidebook; I was using ‘Bradt Travel Guidebook to Ghana 8th
Edition” – (visitor 4 European), and others (visitor 11 Ghanaian, visitor 20 Ghanaian) “got the phone number of the manager from their friends who visited the BFMS before”. In general,
75 | P a g e participants who made pre-contact information stated that their reasons for making enquiries was to help make them feel comfortable and have the confidence of securing their accommodation, safety, and food.
Participant navigational sources to BFMS include google map, road directions, and asking people for directions. Results revealed that the majority of the participants navigated their way to
BFMS using google maps. However, participants pointed out that it is sometimes difficult to navigate using google maps when they come across areas with poor network signal on their devices. One participant stated that, “nowadays you do not need a paper map so much because everything is on the internet and I have ‘google map’ on my phone I also know the problems of google though, and google maps makes mistakes, a place in google map labelled as Boabeng is actually Fiema and is actually wrong” – (visitor 3, European). No domestic participant stated that s/he used google maps to navigate to BFMS.
The use of road directions to navigate to BFMS were common with both domestic and international participants. Less road signs and unclear directions on some road signs led to some participants being lost and unclear directions signpost misled some visitors, when coming to
BFMS. Participants stated that, “the direction was not indicated clearly, on our way, we saw a sign post written the [Boabeng-Fiema] Monkey Sanctuary so we thought was the sanctuary but was not the place, we continue and we saw the German guys also searching for the place but we find it though” – (visitor 5, European).
Most domestic participants asked people on their way for directions to BFMS. Very few international participants asked people for directions to BFMS. Both participants had challenges with seeking directions on the roadside. Domestic participants were quite familiar with the name
Fiema instead of Boabeng for the ecotourism activities. Participants were therefore directed to
76 | P a g e
Fiema, and then redirected to Boabeng. International participants had to stop and ask someone where the Monkey Sanctuary was; this made them uncomfortable as is not done in most participants’ home country, and also the language barrier was difficult for communication between the foreigners and the locals.
4.3 Visitors’ Travel Motivations
This section provides findings on visitors’ travel motivations to BFMS. The reasons for visitors to travel to BFMS were based on three themes:
1. Destination attributes with the sub themes natural attractions, wildlife, rainforest, human-
monkey interactions, and destination location (the pull factors).
2. Escape factors with the sub themes: from stressful work-life, to relax, move from my city
life, move from my daily activities, and for excitement (the push factors).
3. Self-challenge with the sub themes to understand, to clarify, and to explore/discover.
4.3.1 Destination Attributes (Pull factors)
The findings from the interviews show that out of the 39 participants, 82 percent (N=32) traveled to BFMS because of the destination attribute. With regards to natural attractions, findings show that the presence of wildlife such as monkeys, birds, insects as well as the rainforest motivates people to travel to BFMS. For instance, participants who have been there before and those who got recommendations from their friends were more attracted to the monkey species. The following are examples of some of the responses for participants on wildlife features based on their motivation coming to BFMS: “I came here to see the monkeys and feed the monkeys” –
(visitor 5 European). “I came to see different types of monkeys – (visitor 7, European). “I came to see the monkey myself” – (visitor 8, Ghanaian). “My motivation is to see some butterflies and birds” – (visitor 11, Ghanaian). “I came to see insects” – (visitor 13, European). Also, other
77 | P a g e visitors stated that they came to see nature, specifically to explore how the monkeys and the forest relate to each other for instance – (visitor 3,4 and 12, Europeans, visitor 6, Ghanaian, and visitor
9, North American). Also, the study shows that the participants travelled to BFMS to observe how the people from Fiema and Boabeng interact with the two monkey species. For example, visitor
1 Ghanaian stated that “I came to see how this place looks and how the monkeys associate with human beings”. Others claimed that “I came here to see how the people interact with the monkeys because I was told the people stay with the monkeys happily in the community with no harm to the monkeys” – (visitor 14, North American), and visitor 15, North American asserted that “My motivation coming here is to see how the people live in the community, and also how they interact with the monkeys”.
Furthermore, the BFMS location (in central Ghana) is enroute to other tourist destinations such as the Mole National Park (Northern part) and Kakum National Park to the southern part, and therefore BFMS is seen an ‘intervening opportunity’ that attracts tourists to pass by the site while they are enroute to other tourists destinations. Moreover, central Ghana has other attractions such as the Kintampo waterfalls. Participants such as visitor 2, Ghanaian [a teacher who came to BFMS with students] argued that “there is nothing that really motivated us to come here, we were heading to Kintampo but [we have decided to pass to BFMS and see the place] before we go to Kintampo
Waterfalls. If Kintampo was to be closer to Kumasi than this place, then we will not have come here”. Visitor 4, European claimed that “I have been to Mole National Park and continuing to
Kumasi is somewhat on the way here so is a good opportunity to pass by this place”. In addition, visitor 7, European asserted that “I wanted to visit the Mole National Park and because here is on the road between Kumasi and Mole National Park it was a good opportunity to stop here”.
78 | P a g e
4.2.2 Escape Factors (Push factors)
Escape factors influenced visitors (pushed them) to leave their homes to travel to BFMS.
Interview findings show that out of the 39 participants, 18 percent (N=7) disclosed that they wanted to do something different from their daily lifestyle, and to relax from their stressful work life. For example, visitor 3, European, stated that “I have been working a lot, I have spent a lot of time on the highway, I have spent a lot of time on asphalt and in trucks, and today I want to relax”.
He (visitor 3, European) spent more hours at the destination and stayed overnight at the guesthouse.
Other participants claimed that they visited BFMS to have fun and have a family picnic in a different environment. They for instance stated: “I have one weekend here so I will use it to have fun in Ghana and a lot of people I asked recommended this place” – (visitor 10, European). “We came here to spend a family vacation, have fun, and have a different environment to spend our picnic” – (visitor 16, Ghanaian). “I came here to have fun and enjoy” – (visitor 27, Ghanaian, visitor 33, Ghanaian). Others such as visitor 7, European and 17, Australian asserted that they wanted to move away from the city life. Visitor 7, European asserted that “I used to be in some big cities, and I do not want city life on this trip”, while visitor 17, Australian stated that “I want to move away from the noise in the city, I want to be in a quiet place”. Participants who are motivated by escape motivation visited rural and remote tourism destinations such as Bomfobiri, a butterfly sanctuary, Lake Bosomtwe, and BFMS in their trips in Ghana. Destinations with less noise and with beautiful natural scenery were some people’s choice.
4.3.3 Self Challenge
Participants whose motivation for coming to BFMS falls under self-challenge are categorized in two sub-themes: to understand, and to explore. Findings shows that out of the 39 participants, 13 percent (N=5) were influenced to travel to BFMS by their occupations or
79 | P a g e inquisitiveness. Participants whose motivations fall under occupation includes international and domestic researchers from different academic institutions, and consultants working for multinational mining firms. For instance, visitor 3, European, argued that “I have been seeing timber moving on big trucks for exports and the timber has to come from somewhere so apart from relaxing I am a little bit interested also here to understand where the timber comes from for transport”. Others such as visitor 11, Ghanaian, who came to BFMS to explore the research potentials of the destination acclaimed that “My motivation for coming here is to explore the possibilities of having a collaborative relationship with the sanctuary. I am coming from the background of a researcher from Ghanaian University”. Also, visitor 19, European, stated that “I work with a responsible small-scale mining company in Accra. I came here to understand how the people conserve the environment and to see whether the people are into small scale mining”.
Participants who came to BFMS for inquisitiveness wanting to clarify their doubt that the monkeys were human beings and they were turned into monkeys during a war between the
Boabeng-Fiema communities and other communities as they were previously informed by friends and relatives. For example, visitor 18, Ghanaian, declared that “this is my second time coming here. I came here because I was told the monkeys were human beings. I came here to know how true it is that my first time I did not ask the guide but for my second time I asked the guide, now I know they are not humans”. Also, visitor 8, Ghanaian, stated that “Everything that you have not seen before, you will also try your best to come and see it yourself, because I remembered people telling me that the monkeys belong to some chief priest and there was some war here and the priest turned the humans into animals so that they will not get killed. There were some stories that I used to hear and learned in some schools. That was why for my second time I concentrated, and I made sure I asked questions that I was doubting”. These participants’ motives to visit BFMS were to
80 | P a g e clarify whether the monkeys were human beings or not as they were initially informed by their friends, family relatives, and some schoolteachers.
4.4 Visitor Activities
To identify visitors’ activities the study employed both participatory observation and interviews. Visitor activities were examined based on: Visitor Expected Activities, Visitor
Activities Conducted, and Visitor Exciting Activities.
4.4.1 Visitor Expected Activities
Thirty-nine (39) participants were interviewed for activities that they were expecting and willing to do during their tour at BFMS. In general, all participants suggested that they were expecting to have a nature tour where the guide would explain the monkeys and the forest ecology to them. Few participants stated that they were expecting to feed the black and white colobus monkeys, others acclaimed that they were expecting the monkeys to climb on them and stand on their shoulders. Other participants were expecting to spend more time enjoying the tour activities that BFMS management offers, including nature tours such as forest walk, monkey viewing, and tree climbing; and cultural tours such as visiting monkey cemetery and the priest house.
4.4.2 Visitors Activities Conducted
To identify visitors’ activities at BFMS, the study used participant observation. I participated in 22 different visitor activities at BFMS. Based on my participant observation, visitors’ activities can be divided into two categories of visitor activities at BFMS: nature activities and socio-cultural activities. I observed that visitors tend to participate in either of these activities based on individual preferences, pre-knowledge about the destination, and recommendations from tour guides.
81 | P a g e
Nature activities included monkey viewing, other wildlife sightings, tree climbing, forest walks, and wildlife photography. During monkey viewing, I observed that participants start their activities by buying bananas and peanuts from the community women at the village. These suggestions came from tour guides who tell them (visitors) to buy food to feed the mona monkeys.
During the trails walks, visitor would stop when they come across mona monkeys and feed them.
Sometimes the mona monkeys would climb on participants’ shoulders and participants would take pictures with mona monkeys while they feed them (Appendix 2.4). This activity is risky for both participants and monkeys; for instance, during my participation observation I observed over ten participants who got bitten and scratched by mona monkeys. For the tree climbing activities I observed most of participants were interested in climbing the ficus tree (Ficus spp) which has a hollow-like ladder for climbing (Appendix 2.5).
The socio-cultural activities entailed listening to stories about BFMS history, visiting the monkey cemetery, traditional priest house, observing local cultural dancing performances, picnics with friends and family as well as purchasing local crafts and products including food. During the tour activities participants visited the monkey cemetery where the guides narrated the history of
BFMS and information about the monkeys who had been buried at the site. In addition, tour guides would recommend visitors (mostly the international participants) to purchase local craft souvenirs.
In the following paragraphs I provided narratives of participants observations I made on visitors tour activities at BFMS. The first narrative: The tour constitutes four visitors, one of them was a female international visitor from France who was in Ghana for holidays and the other three individuals were Ghanaian males who accompanied her to BFMS. We started the tour led by the guide, at the BFMS visitor center, because they slept at the guesthouse the guide escorted them to the visitor center where they did their tour registration. After their registration, the guide told
82 | P a g e visitors to buy bananas; even before the guide informed them; the women had already run towards visitors with the bananas and peanuts. They bought bananas and went to the forest starting from the Akowuah Trail through to the Kyenkyen Trail (Appendix 3). Trails at BFMS are named after prominent people or dominant big trees that can be found within that area, hence Akowuah trail was named after the late D. K. Akowuah, the first native wildlife officer and the Kyenkyen trail was named after the dominating Kyenkyen tree within the area. Since we started the tour in the morning around 10:00 a.m., we were able to see both the mona and the colobus monkeys on trees along the trails. The mona monkeys forcefully jumped onto the visitors and grabbed the bananas from them, through the contact one of the visitors got bitten by the mona monkey and left the stamp of their footstep in visitors’ shirts. This caused fear in visitors thus lowered their excitement, along the Watapuo trail we came across a group of black and white colobus monkeys feeding on the leaves of the trees. We moved to our next attraction, the ficus tree. The tree has a hole inside which has a ladder-like root system; therefore, visitors climb on it to the top of the trees and take pictures. For this group, they did not climb the ficus tree, because one was bitten by the mona monkey. They were not happy with any of the activities from that time on. At BFMS the more you move to different attractions, the less you encounter the mona monkeys. Visitors and guides spend most of their time on the Akowuah trail where the concentration of the mona monkey is high. We moved to the next attraction, which was also a ficus tree, but the roots had grown in the form of giraffe-like structure, so they call it the giraffe tree. It is noted that when the elders of Boabeng community settled, they initially stayed in this forest before they relocated to their current settlement because of their population increase. The location of the giraffe tree was their ‘City
Center’ they sat there to have fun, relax, and play games. Along the ficus trail we moved to the next attraction, which was the mahogany tree, it is noted to be one of the biggest trees at BFMS,
83 | P a g e estimated to be over 150 years old. The mahogany trees are used for timber and used as a medicinal plant for both humans and the monkeys. The next attraction was the monkey cemetery. This is where the guide narrated how the priest buried monkeys with box, cloth, and schnapps as the monkeys were not killed or eaten. The monkey’s cemetery always marks the end of the tour. But sometimes some visitors go into the souvenir shop to buy wood carvings. The tour lasted for one hour three minutes. We got an uninvited guest at the ficus trail; I witnessed several cases where strangers joined tour activities especially when there is a funeral celebration in the community.
The French visitor asked the guide whether they had gorillas in the forest because she like gorillas and that was her motive to come to the Monkey Sanctuary The guide replied that BFMS do not have gorillas (Participant observation 1 at BFMS on October 18, 2019, 10:10 am to 11:13 am).
The second narrative: A group of 11 United States visitors came to BFMS with a tour operator, meaning they have their tour guide together with the local guide of the BFMS. These groups also perform all the activities mentioned in participants observation 1 (monkey viewing, trail walk, ficus tree observation, big mahogany tree observation, and monkey cemetery visit and history listening) except they did not sleep at the guesthouse and also their tour guide requested a visit to the traditional priest house. I narrated the event that happened at the priest house. We went to the priest house where the Daworo deity is kept, we were led by the local guide. As we entered the house we were given chairs to sit on, the tour operator leader offered a local drink to the priest (the tour operator always visits the priest whenever he comes to BFMS) that he pour libation to pray to the gods. The priest asked us our purpose of visiting his house or palace. The local guide told him that the tourist wanted to witness the deity and hear from him, how they protect the monkeys through the deity. The priest narrated how the monkeys were discovered and how they have been buried (see section 3.7.5), he also continued with the rituals they performed to seek protection for
84 | P a g e both the monkeys and the community members from the deity. He also showed them where the deity is kept. That was my first time going to the priest house with visitors and what makes me excited and gave me a memorable experience was a story the priest gave about the colobus smartness. As one of the visitors asked the priest why black and white colobus do not eat human food? He answered, “The black and white colobus is one of the smartest animals on earth. A colobus observes a farmer who used to roast his yam on firewood and after it is cooked, he removes it from the fire and blows air from his month to make it cool. The colobus who used to observe the farmer from the top of the tree was more curious to have a taste of the food. So, one day the farmer forgot to quench the fire and he left to the house. So, the colobus thought the fire was the food that the farmer used to eat. It went and removed the fire, put it in its hand and it tried to imitate the process the farmer did to his yam. The colobus got burnt by the fire on his mouth part and it concluded that human beings have bad intentions. What we are eating is not good and from there going colobus did not eat any human food”. All the visitors were so happy to hear this story and I was also happy because I never heard of local story related to colobus feeding behaviour
(Participants observation 2 at BFMS October 25, 2019 from 9:45am to 11: 50pm).
4.4.3 Visitor Exciting Activities
Participants’ facial expressions such as smiles were used to determine participants’ excitement in an activity. In this study I found that the main activities that spark visitor’s excitement are seeing large groups of monkeys, especially the groups with pregnant and baby monkeys with their mothers. I also observed that participants were excited when the mona monkey climbs on their shoulders and feeds them. When this happens visitors become more excited, and they tend to take pictures and selfies with the mona monkeys. However, other participants did not feed the mona monkeys but were still excited to see the monkeys and took pictures even though
85 | P a g e the monkeys did not climb on them. I also found that when participants take selfies with the monkeys, they tend to share the photos on social media such as Facebook, Instagram, and google maps. This aspect helps to create a social media trademark of BFMS and influences more visitors to come and have such an experience. In addition, participants were attracted to see the colobus monkeys because of their black and white color, their black body coat, white tall, and the white oval fluffy hair around their black face.
I found that participants were also excited to see the ficus tree with unique hollow ladder- like features in it. Participants were excited to climb the ficus tree through the inside to the top.
Participants gestures, poses, and smiles on their faces show how excited they are to climb the ficus tree. A few participants of about 15 individuals observed showed less excitement at the monkey cemetery. The cemetery is designated by management and guides to be the end of the forest walk or monkey tour, guides narrate the history and story about monkey’s burial. Data from my participatory observation shows that the participants who were less excited with the monkey cemetery showed signs of tiredness during this section of the tour. Moreover, there was only one participating group that visited the traditional priest of Daworo who showed to be excited when the priest narrated to them why the black and white colobus do not eat human beings’ food.
86 | P a g e
4.5 Visitor Satisfaction
Thirty-nine (39) participants were interviewed to comment about their satisfaction from the tour activities and services they had at BFMS. Visitors’ satisfaction was classified under two categories based on: service quality and physical environment quality.
4.5.1 Service Quality
The service quality assessed in this study included interpretation service during tour guiding, guides performance, caretaking services, catering service, and information quality such as the availability of safety signs and warnings.
Satisfactions: Based on the results from my interview, 37 participants stated they were satisfied with the interpretation service during the guided tour they had at BFMS. The guides would instruct the visitors how to feed the monkeys and also explained to visitor and interpret the monkeys’ action and behaviours such as staying in groups, competing for food, and parent handling of young ones to participants. In terms of guides’ performance, participants expressed their satisfaction with the tour guides for being polite, respectful, having a good attitude and behaviour. Various participants disclosed the reasons for their satisfaction; for example, one domestic visitor stated that “we went into the forest and they said the history to me, and I felt that yes!” – (visitor 1, Ghanaian). Another domestic visitor said, “my personal interaction with the tour guide, he carries himself as somebody who knows what he is talking about and apparently he has a lot of experience, he understands a lot of the ecology about monkeys and the general habitat” – (visitor 11, Ghanaian). Other non-
Ghanaian participant, asserted that “I give top notch, five star to my guide, he was calm, polite, friendly, but very knowledgeable” – (visitor 3, European). Another one who was lucky enough to have two tour guides argued that “I was alone with the tour guide which I enjoyed. We easily saw
Monas and black and white Colobus monkeys. The Monas approached for food while the Colobus
87 | P a g e kept their distance. The guide showed me how to hold the banana and peanuts, so the monkeys were near me longer which was great! I could easily observe babies clinging to their mothers. The guide was kind and patient but could not answer all my questions about the monkeys. I was able to do another tour through the sanctuary by myself, but a local person ended up joining. He was extremely knowledgeable and answered all my questions plus told me more. With him I experienced the monkeys in a thrilling amplified way!” – (Visitor 9, North American).
Four participants who stayed overnight at the guesthouse from, November 2019 to
December 2019, were impressed with the caretaking services at the guest house. Some participants applaud the caretaker for providing essential services to them during their stay at the guesthouse.
For example, visitor 3, European, acclaimed that the next most important thing is immediately when I arrived, I was welcomed and the caretaker asked me if I wanted to stay, so the way that she received me was great and she was a good host of that place and made a nice food for me”. Visitor
9, North American, asserted that “The caretaker, a lovely young lady, made my stay so very comfortable! Firstly, and most importantly, she loaned me soap, slippers, and a wrap so that I might shower while she washed my clothes”. Furthermore, participants who stayed in the BFMS guesthouse disclosed their satisfaction on the catering services. These participants were satisfied and excited with the local dishes offered at BFMS such as fufu, ampesi, and banku. For instance, two non-Ghanaian visitors stated that the quality of food at the guesthouse was excellent. The first one asserted that “they were so happy, and they enjoyed the food (fufu) they had, and that they are going to bring their friends to also have such a nice experience” – (Visitor 10, European). The second visitor acclaimed that “[The caretaker] prepared a healthy dinner that was enough to feed me for breakfast also. I enjoyed hot tea in the shaded sitting area in the morning while watching
88 | P a g e monkeys and chickens roam and swing. For just US$12 a night, this was a lovely quiet rural refuge that is beautiful and well taken care of” – (visitor 9, North American).
Dissatisfactions: Despite having a high number of visitors who were satisfied with the quality of the services they received at BFMS, three participants expressed their dissatisfaction with absence of catering services at the visitor center and the quality of the room services at the BFMS guesthouse. These participants said that it would have been nice to have a place where they could relax, buy food and drinks at the visitor centre after their touring activities. For instance, two participants suggested that “We did not see any canteen here, at least everywhere there is tourism.
At least the canteen is there because this is a small place. At least we should get some small canteen so that in the small canteen we can get some food or some meat” – (visitor 2, Ghanaian). “When we come here, like the refreshment like this, you know the heat, the sun after the trip, you may enjoy and have something cool to drink, it will bring income to the village. We are bringing money to the community, so they should think otherwise to take the money from us. And everybody is doing it, the whole world is doing it even the Netherlands” – (visitor 6, Ghanaian). As a result of this, participants tend to spend very short hours at the destination and often do not stay overnight.
The availability of catering services would help to raise income for the BFMS management through selling foods and rent the guesthouse to more visitors. With regards to the BFMS guesthouse very few participants (two visitors) complained about proper cleaning of the rooms.
Other areas where visitors expressed their dissatisfaction in terms of the information quality is the provision of insufficient information from guides especially on safety and warning signs in the forest during their tour. For instance, some visitors complained that guides did not tell them the mona monkey can attack and sometimes even bite or scratch you if you hold banana or any other food. Participants argued further that this kind of information is essential for them to
89 | P a g e know prior to the tour. Thus, my research sees the need for having more information about the monkey behaviour to both guides and the visitors. Such information can be added in the BFMS website, or they could be presented as brochures and newsletters at the site so that visitors couldbe informed on what to expect during their tour. Other participants complained about the cultural component included in the information given to them by guides. For instance, some tourists wanted to hear more about the history of the local communities at BFMS, while others argued that it would have been nice to see the traditional priest telling the stories about the monkey cemeteries and why they were buried. Others, especially visitor 2, 20 and 23, Ghanaians, wanted a more cultural component and to see the ‘Daworo River” where the priest goes to perform ritual activities once a year.
4.5.2 Physical Environmental Quality
The participants responses to physical environmental quality elements in this study relates to: attractions of the park (e.g. monkeys, rainforest, trails, cemetery), park environmental quality (e.g. signage and directions, visitors centre, guesthouse, safety and security warnings, and signage and directions), and facilities of the park (e.g. litter bins, washrooms, washing bowl).
Satisfactions: In terms of the park’s attractions all the 39 participants were satisfied from seeing the black and white colobus, and the mona monkeys in the forest during their touring activities.
One participant stated that “I was so happy by seeing the monkeys, especially the one with the long white tail” – (visitor 16, Ghanaian). Other participants were satisfied seeing the big trees especially the ficus tree, the serene atmosphere, and the fresh air at the BFMS rainforest. To quote few participants, they expressed their satisfaction as following: “I am so happy to see these big trees, I have been learning about them in class, but I have not seen them with my naked eyes until today” – (visitor 23, Ghanaian). Another contended that “climbing the tree was a nice experience,
90 | P a g e it challenges the physique in me” – (visitor 3, European). In addition, various participants acclaimed that trails helps to ease the movements in the forest. Also, the presence of the monkey cemetery added more satisfaction to see how people treated the dead monkeys with burial instead of letting them to rot, some participants stated further that such practises increase the sanitation measures at BFMS.
With regards to park environmental quality and facilities, nine participants were satisfied with the presence of the visitor centre, signage and directions, guesthouse, safety, and security warnings. They (participants) noted that the visitor center provided enough space for them to have their breakfast and provided a place to rest. Some participants were satisfied with the signage and directions at and to the destination but expressed that the management can provide more signs with adequate information on them to promote self-guided tours. Moreover, participants stated that they were satisfied with the quality of accommodation they received at the guesthouse. Some participants such as visitor 3, European, and visitor 9, North American, stated that they were satisfied to see there was water in the guesthouse and showers. However, these participants proposed that, the management can improve the park environment by adding children playground, television room to watch BFMS documentaries, and chairs in the forest to rest on during tour activities. They suggested further the presence of such amenities can contribute to improve visitor’s satisfaction. Also, the presence of litter bins, and washing bowl helps to improve the sanitation measures implemented by BFMS. Some participants were happy to see the existence of litter bins, washing bowls with soap, and tissue paper at the visitor center for visitors to wash their hands after their tour. One participant for example, stated that “I am also happy with them providing the washing bowls and soap. This is the first place I have been in Ghana that they provide such things” – (visitor 9, North American).
91 | P a g e
Dissatisfactions: Participants expressed their concerns with the quality of the urinal pit at the visitor centre. They complained about the poor state of the urinal pit, the absence of defecate system (toilet) and roof. Other participants expressed their worries on the poor state of the roads leading to the destination. They also maintained further that the roads have a lot of dust, slippery and muddy during rain seasons. Deducing from my participant observations and interviews, an improvement of the road’s quality has a great chance of increasing the number of tourists at BFMS.
However, the maintenance of the roads is part of the government plan; visitors recommended that the management could write a proposal to the government to request for road improvements.
4.6 Sustainable Ecotourism Practices
The study utilized both interview and participatory observation to assess the contribution of visitor’s experiences to the sustainable ecotourism practices at BFMS. In such attempts, the study utilizes Bhuiyan et al.’s (2012:55) three indicators of sustainable ecotourism development: the socio-cultural, economic, and environmental sustainability.
4.6.1 Socio-Cultural Sustainability
The socio-cultural sustainability includes the social wellbeing of the local communities, maintaining the integrity of the local cultures, and lifestyle. Visitor’s experience and satisfaction can sustain the socio-cultural component of the ecotourism project values and respect the local cultural values. The cultural and oral history of the local communities at BFMS is preserved and enriched by the elderly populations who pass them down from one generation to another. Based on my participatory observation and interviews, there appeared to be a low interest on the inclusion of cultural elements and the oral history of the local community in the tour interpretation by the guides. Few visitors seemed to be interested in listening to the stories of the local communities’ culture and history. In my participatory observation, I observed one group of 11 senior visitors
92 | P a g e
(above 60 years of age) from the United States who showed interest on local culture, they visited the local priest and observed how he performed the rituals. Also, another visitor (visitor 14, North
American) was interested to learn about the history of the locals. In my participatory observation,
I observed a high number of non-Ghanaian visitors who were interested in and purchased the local craft at BFMS, compared with Ghanaian visitors who seem to be familiar with most of the artifacts available at the site, hence they do less patronizing the products.
In my interviews, few participants disclosed their reasons for being sensitive to and wanting to respect the cultural values of the local people. They assumed that their interactions with the locals in the village and intruding the local space may be disturbing the local people in the village. For instance, visitor 5, European, stated that “we know people like visiting the village and to see what the people are doing. We tried this yesterday in a village close to Mole National
Park, it was a bit disturbing because we were thinking we are disturbing the people in the village.
Some people like it and some of them do not like it. In our opinion we think it is not good to go to people’s homes and ask what they are doing even though some people may like it. It was like not natural we felt that the people were forcing themselves to show us what they are doing”. Also, I observed that the majority of the non-Ghanaian visitors tend to have more interactions with the local people, they tend to give them gifts, and take pictures when the locals give their consent.
4.6.2 The Economic Sustainability
The economic sustainability addressed in this study includes how the ecotourism project can generate income and employment to the local communities at BFMS. Income can be generated through visitor entrance fees as well as spending in the community. This aspect is linked to visitor’s experience in a number of ways, first, when visitors are satisfied, they might revisit the site or tell stories about their experiences at BFMS to their friends and family and hence the site can attract
93 | P a g e more visitors. When the site has a large number of visitors, it has the potential to generate more income in the long run, which can generate more employment and benefits to the community.
However, the ‘large number of visitors’ here has to consider the carrying capacity of the destination. Only small portion of the core protected area (1.9km2) is been used for the tour activities (see Figure 3). Thus, the potential of large number of visitors to generate income must be balanced (carrying capacity) with the detrimental effects of those visitors on the environmental quality of the site. Balancing income generation and environmental quality and protection of attractions such as the monkeys, would create a conducive environment for quality visitor experience which would facilitate more and re-visitation for long term economic generation.
During my interviews, participants stated that they pay entrance fees for tours and hope the income generated from them can be used for developing the site and improving the social well being of the local communities. With regards to improving the social well-being of the local communities, participants believed that the ecotourism project at BFMS provides income to the people. The participants stated they noticed that all staff were from the local community hence they were convinced that part of the revenue generated from their entrance fees are used to pay the
BFMS employees. In addition, participants stated that they purchase the local handcrafts and food to support the local people to generate income and improve their livelihoods. For instance, two non-Ghanaians participant acclaimed that “When I buy groundnuts and when I buy bananas, those are things which are locally produced…So I am supporting that economy so that makes me a little feel good, I give people some business” – (visitor 3, European). “I came to this place because I know that the fee I will pay, will be used to support the environment and the community” – (visitor
10, European).
94 | P a g e
Moreover, based on their experiences and satisfactions some of the participants suggested several improvements and innovative ideas that BFMS management and the local communities can introduce to generate more money. These included building cafeterias to sell food at the visitor center, introducing bicycle tours to move around the areas in the village, and introducing the homestay program which will allow visitors to experience the local culture such as the way of making foods, carvings and ways of dressing. To mention a few responses from the interviewed visitors, they stated the following for the BFMS management, “They can organize training for visitors such as learning how to make wooden carvings, making local foods, and how to perform local dances. Such activities will bring income to the people and make the visitors’ activities educative and enjoyable” – (visitor 17, Australian). With regards to the introduction of bicycle tour activities, visitor 4 European acclaimed that “Usually I like cycling also now it is not possible, but I think if you could offer mountain bicycle for bicycle tourism in the area and guided. It can either be guided or with the map to instruct the tourist, it can generate extra income for people”.
Others who proposed about the building of cafeteria include visitor 2, Ghanaian, who stated that
“We did not see any canteen here, at least everywhere there is tourism. At least the canteen is there because it is a small place. At least we should get a small canteen so that we can get some food or some meat” – (visitor 2, Ghanaian).
4.6.3 Environmental Sustainability
The environmental sustainability in this study includes the preservation and protecting the natural environment at BFMS. In this study I reported in section 4.5.2 that, the environmental components such as the forest and the monkeys mostly influence visitors’ satisfaction at BFMS.
Thus, ensuring environmental sustainability by regulating visitors’ impact on the environment would provide long term preservation and protection of the environment and biodiversity
95 | P a g e components such as the forest and the monkeys. Facilitating the sustainability of the environmental component of the ecotourism project such as the forest and the monkeys would improve the visitors experience as their satisfaction mostly depend on the forest and the monkeys.
Based on my participatory observation, I observed that only one group out of 22 visitor groups did not feed the mona monkeys. Feeding the mona monkeys seems to spark excitement to visitors despite the presence of signs that say ‘do not feed the monkeys’ at the site. I observed that most of the time, the guides will tell the tourists to buy bananas and feed the monkeys without even caring about the posted sign “do not feed the monkeys”. This is an unsustainable practice and it might have negative impact to monkey behavior and in the long run it will affect the monkey population. One key problem is that the guides do not have proper training and knowledge on monkey behaviour. In my interviews, few participants showed concern for the environment and the monkey populations. For instance, visitor 17, European, stated that “the monkeys are supposed to be wild animals, the more you give them food the more they come to the village to steal things.
Also, here it is written “Please do not feed the monkeys, and on the other hand you ask the people to buy food for the monkeys”. Others asked for reasons why guides will tell them to buy bananas and feed the monkeys despite the fact that the site has signs saying the opposite. For example, visitor 4, European, acclaimed that “I thought about it and asked them why? They said we wrote that so that enemies will not come and give them food poison”. Similar concerns were raised by visitor 3, European, who argued that even though feeding the monkey is bad for monkeys’ behaviour, it also creates income for some locals. He (visitor 3, European) continued further that
“first of all what I am using to feed the monkeys is what I bought here locally from people and when I buy groundnuts and when I buy bananas, those are things which are locally produced. I do not know but I think I am supporting that economy so that makes me feel a little good. I give
96 | P a g e people some business. Then when I give it to the monkeys I will feel very bad if I had the feeling that if there are children here who are starving but I think people seem to be in good health even though some people must be very poor, so to give food to the monkeys I will feel bad if I knew meanwhile other people are not having enough but since I am giving the money and there is business I do not have problem”. Visitor 3, European, maintained further that he is aware that some of the activities such as feeding the monkeys is not good for the monkeys but by doing so provided him with a lot of enjoyment. He described the excitement he gets from the feeding scenario as follows: “when the monkeys are coming it is always the leader or the big one who gets most food.
So, you want the small ones to also get something, but it is also interesting to observe how they do not get because they are not so strong, and the leader is pushing them. So, I like learning something.
I feel good about the feeding. I do not want to feed too much because I also have the fear that if you feed them too much all the time then they will probably be unnatural. But I do not expect them to be just wild animals, these monkeys relate to people so the relationship is good and I saw it as a good situation and I enjoyed it” – (visitor 3, European).
Furthermore, I observed some participants, especially the Ghanaian visitors tend to dump plastic bags in the forest. Other practices that excited visitors but are harmful to the forest and the monkey populations include littering of garbage, noise pollution, and trampling on small vegetations. In the field, I observe that every time visitors make a lot of noise the monkeys, especially the black and white colobus monkeys, hide in deep areas of the forest (where they can sleep). Trampling of small vegetations occurs when visitors go off the walking trails into the forest to view monkeys.
97 | P a g e
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the general implications of the research and summarizes the findings. In the discussion, the research questions are addressed with reference to the ways in which the visitor experience can contribute to sustainable ecotourism practices at BFMS. This chapter is divided into two sections: the first section (section 5.2) discusses the measures of the visitor experience, and the second section (section 5.3) discusses the visitor experience that contributes to sustainable ecotourism practices at BFMS.
5.2 The Measures of Visitors’ Experience
The measures of the visitor experience utilized follows the theoretical framework of visitor experience by Leask (2016) described in Section 2.7 of chapter 2 with few modifications. Such measures comprised of themes: the visitor profile, pre-trip information, motivations, activities, and satisfaction.
5.2.1 Visitor Profile
Visitor social demographic characteristics: visitors’ social demographics such as gender, age, occupation, and visitor origin plays a significant role in visitor’s choice of destination, activities, and behaviour (Atilgan, Akinci, and Aksoy, 2003). Results from visitor profiles show that the percentage of male (52%) and female (48%) visitors (see table 5) were quite similar. However, in my interviews, more male (69%) participated than female participants (31%) [see Table 6]. This could be due to the fact that I am a male and/or due to cultural differences between males and female especially in Ghanaian culture whereby males are portrayed as ‘leaders’ or heads of household. One may argue that the use of a female research assistant could have generated equal number of male and female visitors in the interview. I thought of hiring a female assistant in this
98 | P a g e study, specifically for the data collections, but the difficulties for the assistant to understand the concept of ecotourism and the budget to fund the assistant came into consideration and prevented me from doing so.
The participants’ age profile comprised of youth which makes up about 70 percent
(N=139), aged between 18-30, followed by mature group (age 31-59), and finally the senior (aged between 60-89) (see table 5).
In terms of visitor’s occupations, about 39% (N=78) of the youth participants were both domestic students and international students. However, as discussed in Chapter four, the number of domestic students 42 (54%) is higher than the international students 36 (46%). The domestic students travel to BFMS in large groups and they often tend to travel with their teachers as part of their school excursion. Most of the international students are volunteers who go to the destination for touring. Similar results have been described elsewhere by Amuquandoh et al. (2011) study on visitors’ experience at Owabi Wildlife Sanctuary focusing on international visitors. Amuquandoh et al.’s (2011) findings show that the majority of the visitors at Owabi Wildlife Sanctuary in Ghana are mainly international student volunteers, who tends to combine their volunteering services and exploring the tourism attractions of the host country. The church groups comprised of 18% of the participants (N=36). In my interview, the working groups such as the government workers, bankers, nurses, professors/researchers, and engineers tended to visit BFMS when they had free time especially during public holidays, on Christmas festival and over the weekends. A similar suggestion was made by Kulser (1991) who argued that ecotourists/ eco-visitors are individuals who travel based on their free time. Therefore, time plays a key role for tourists’ experiences and visits at BFMS. Results of my participation observation and interviews show that the working group always has limited time for excursion, what I observed is that they always make short tour
99 | P a g e trips. This would have an impact on their experience at the destination as they may not have enough time to participate in all the activities which may affect their satisfaction.
With references to the visitors origin findings (Table 3) show that BFMS attracts more domestic than international visitors; 61 percent (N=120) of the visitors were Ghanaians, followed by non-Ghanaians European (28%), North American (8%), other African countries (1.5%), Asian
(1.01%), and Oceanian (0.5%). For the international visitors, the study shows a high number of
European visitors, followed by North Americans, similar results have been identified (e.g. by
Adams et al., 2017; Amuquandoh et al., 2011; Eshun and Adjei, 2016) in Ghana where ecotourism is being practiced. Since this study was conducted in Ghana, I had a higher expectation to have participants from other African countries because of Ghana’s proximity to other African countries.
However, the results are comparable to other visitor experience studies in Ghana (e.g. by Adams et al., 2017; Amuquandoh et al., 2011; Eshun and Adjei, 2016) which shows low number of visitors from other African countries.
Visitor trip characteristics: in this study I focused on the time visitors spent at the destination since it relates to visitor’s satisfaction at BFMS. The underlying assumption is that the more time people spend at the site the more time they will have to participate in all tour activities offered and hence will be more satisfied. Thus, I assumed that visitors who stayed overnight at the BFMS guesthouse would have more time for touring. The study found that on average most of the participants spent approximately one hour and 15 minutes in their tour activities. Forty-one participants stayed overnight at BFMS guesthouse, 24 of them were females, and 17 of them were males (Table 7).
Visitor pre-trip information: to understands how visitors get to know BFMS and make their travel arrangements, it was important to examine sources of information about the site’s attractions and traveling to the site. This is important in order to determine visitor’s motivations, expectations,
100 | P a g e and activities at BFMS. Results from my interview revealed various sources of visitors’ pre-trip information played a key role to influence visitors’ experience at BFMS. Sources such as individual recommendation by word of mouth from friends or family members had higher influence (54%) than media sources (33%) and printed documents (13%). Individual recommendation is critical when it comes to visitors’ expectations especially the domestic tourists compared to media sources which most of the time depends on the reliability of internet access.
In chapter 4, I reported several visitors who complained about the problem with the BFMS website when they tried to acquire information about the site, but when they tried to call the phone number provided in the website seven out of the 10 participants who made pre-contact information were not successful. This indicates that there are problems with the BFMS Information
Technology (IT), including an unreliable and bad network reception. This is important for the visitor experience because participants are not getting easy access to the information about various products and services of BFMS. It also indicates that participants who were able to pre-book and plan with the BFMS staff in advance of their arrival were much more comfortable and more certain about the kinds of services they were going to receive.
5.2.2 Visitors Motivation
The visitor’s motivation for traveling to BFMS are highlighted broadly in Chapter 4.
Destination attributes played a primary role in terms of visitors’ motivations. Similar factors have been identified in other ecotourism studies by Amuquandoh (2017) and Chan and Baum (2007b).
The presence of natural attractions, such as the mona, and black and white colobus monkeys and rainforest are prime motivators for tourists. Other tourist destinations in Ghana such as the Tafi
Atome, and Duaasedan Monkey Sanctuary contain the mona monkey species (Afenyo and
Amuquandoh, 2014; Zeppel, 2006) but the black and white colobus monkeys occur in large
101 | P a g e numbers only at BFMS. Thus, the presence of black and white colobus monkeys makes BFMS unique to the other destinations. Additionally, BFMS offers unique opportunities for visitors to interact with the mona monkeys especially when they climb on their shoulders during feeding which creates excitement for visitors. Although, this experience influences visitors to travel to
BFMS, coming in contact with the monkeys is actually against BFMS policy, however this is not enforced by the guides. The guides encourage the visitors to purchase bananas and peanuts to feed to the monkeys even though there are signs stating, “Do not feed the monkeys”. Contact with the monkeys can be dangerous for the visitors, because of the potential of the monkeys scratching and biting the visitors, which can lead to disease transmission between humans and monkeys.
As noted in the previous chapter, escape factors motivate visitors to experience new environments with the aim of relaxing from their work activities, to have fun with their friends and families, to get away from city life and noises associated with the city (see also, Chan and Baum,
2007b, Kassean and Gassita, 2013). Moreover, a study by Adam et al. (2017) also supports the notion that eco-visitors tend to travel for socialisation and relaxation.
Participants whose motivations for traveling to BFMS fall under the self-challenge or self- fulfillment category (see Chan and Baum, 2007b) were having their own expectations. My research identified that these participants (visitor 8 and 18, Ghanaians) have been to BFMS before and wanted to clarify what they heard about the monkeys turning to human beings. They (Visitor 8 and
18) said further that after they asked the guides about this myth, they got the opportunity to know that they are not humans. This kind of thinking is not new to the area, this could be related to the existence of peaceful interactions between the monkeys and humans at the community. Moreover, it is known in general that primates are a group of species on which ecotourism has concentrated a lot, for instance, people travel worldwide to observe gorillas or chimpanzee lifeways (Nakamura
102 | P a g e and Nishida, 2009). This is probably the reason why people are interested in their relationship and try to learn more about their similarities to humans.
5.2.3 Visitor Activities
Visitor activities start from and are influenced by their expectations because most visitors do have some knowledge about the destination they are visiting and what they are expecting to do or see. The main expectation that almost all visitors have highlighted during the interview is to experience nature, tour where the guide will explain about the monkeys and the forest ecology, and to see the monkeys and interact with them when they climb on their shoulders to feed. Few tourists suggested that they expect to have cultural tours which included visiting the monkey cemetery and the priest house.
Results from my participant observation and interviews include various visitors’ activities embedded under natural and the socio-cultural components. The natural component includes activities such as monkey viewing, forest walks, and tree climbing. The socio-cultural activities seem to have been experienced by few visitors and include the visiting of monkey graves, listening to BFMS history, purchasing local crafts, and eating local dishes. The lack of interest regarding the socio-cultural activities by visitors can be attributed to the fact that the tour guides do not include this portion in the tour and there is a lack of promotion and exposure. In my participatory observation, I saw that this aspect is related to the fact that there is an absence of manual guides and information available, and as a result most of the time guides will only include the socio- cultural information if the tourists inquire about them. A combination of both cultural and natural activities has a great potential for the destination to attract more visitors and improve the visitor experience as well as satisfaction. It is suggested by some authors such as Ayala (1996) and Chan and Baum (2007b), that a combination of nature and cultural experiences stimulates and shapes
103 | P a g e the behaviour of tourists for an exciting and memorable experience. Therefore, if BFMS combines the cultural and natural activities, for instance, narrations about the history of BFMS, monkeys and the traditional practices that Fiema and Boabeng community use to conserve the forest and the monkey populations, this could increase visitor satisfaction and links to sustainability. BFMS is rich in different tourist attractions, and the interactions that tourists have with the two monkey populations and climbing on trees such as the ficus tree will be imprinted into visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism as they develop emotions towards their experience in wildlife tourism (see
Ballantyne et al. 2010 for similar discussion). To combine such experiences with a cultural component would further enrich this experience and could facilitate the preservation of local customs, histories, and cultures.
5.2.4 Visitors Satisfaction
In order to understand visitor’s satisfaction at BFMS, participants were interviewed to establish their level of satisfaction from the tour activities and services that they received at BFMS.
This is important because visitor satisfaction is embedded in visitors’ activities. When visitors are satisfied with their activities, such experiences have great potential to influence their (the visitors) intention to revisit the destination (Adams et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2011; Swanson and Davis,
2003) or telling the stories about the destination to other people.
In general, all participants were satisfied with the service quality provided at the destination. In terms of the quality of the information provided by guides, some visitors applaud the guides abilities to interpret monkeys’ actions and some of the behaviours. Further, in chapter
4, I reported on the tourists who were satisfied with the caretaking services they received at the
BFMS guest house. They complimented on the catering services, the fact that they were able to eat local foods such as fufu, ampesi, and banku at a cheap price while enriching them with the
104 | P a g e local cultural experiences. However, this research noted that some of the visitors were not satisfied with activities such as feeding the monkeys, and complained that the guides did not do a good job in terms of giving them precautions and warnings about monkey’s attack on visitors. Other tourists commented on the lack of the cultural component on the tour and in my participatory observation
I noted that some guides have more knowledge about the cultural attractions of BFMS than others.
In this regard, it is crucial for the management to include the cultural attractions as part of the touring and train the tour guides to be consistent in their explanations. Other areas where visitors expressed their dissatisfaction include the absence of catering services at the visitors’ centre, and as a result the majority of them spent few hours at the site. In my participatory observation, I noticed there is a need for guides to include more information about monkey behaviours so as to help visitors and to caution them about the possibilities of being bitten or scratched by monkeys and how feeding can change monkey behaviour. This can be added in the BFMS website or presented in brochures and newsletters at the site so that visitors can be informed on what to expect and how to properly behave during their tour. In addition, several visitors raised their concerns on the problems with the BFMS information technology, for instance the website is not updated for visitors to get reliable information about the site. While some of these are relatively small details and require minimal financial resources to implement, they can make a big difference in improving the visitor experience and the long-term sustainability of this ecotourism project.
In terms of physical environment, the BFMS attractions that stimulated more satisfactions include the park attractions (e.g. monkeys, rainforest, trails, cemetery), park quality (e.g. visitors centre, guesthouse, safety and security warnings, and signage and directions). As one among the protected areas in Ghana, BFMS is well organized with good walking trails, the presence of black and white colobus, and the mona monkeys, climbing trees in the rainforest especially the ficus
105 | P a g e tree, and the dead monkey’s cemetery which increases visitors satisfaction. The findings of this study are similar to other studies that focused on the visitor experience at protected areas in Ghana such as the Tafi Atome Monkey Sanctuary, Mole National Park, and Owabi Wildlife Sanctuary, whereby natural components of the physical environment provides the highest visitor satisfaction
(Adam et al., 2017; Afenyo and Amuquandoh, 2014; Amuquandoh et al., 2011). In terms of the physical environmental quality and facilities, few participants were satisfied with the visitor centre which provides them with places to have breakfast and resting when it rains. Moreover, almost all participants suggested areas for improvement such as adding a children’s playground area, a television room to watch BFMS documentaries, chairs in the forest to rest, litterbins, and having good washrooms to increase visitor’s satisfaction. With regards to signage and directions, few visitors were satisfied, and others requested the management to have more signs and information
(e.g. up to date maps about the site, safety and security warnings) about the forest to help people who do self-guided tours.
5.3 Ecotourism and Sustainable Development
As discussed in the literature review section, this study aimed at examine three indicators of sustainable ecotourism development: socio-cultural, economic, and environmental sustainability following Bhuiyan et al.’s (2012) sustainable ecotourism development framework.
While these are three components of sustainability, they are all interconnected features and thus are mutually influential.
5.3.1 Socio-cultural Sustainability
The socio-cultural aspect can be sustained if the ecotourism project at BFMS incorporates the social well being of the local communities, upholds the values of the local cultures, and lifestyle. In terms of social well-being, the ecotourism project at BFMS sustains the local people’s
106 | P a g e income generation, especially through selling local crafts, and food to visitors as well as engaging in performing cultural dances. For example, in the field I observed other cultural activities such as cultural troop performances that can help to raise local people’s income and create self employment and hence may improve individuals’ lifestyles.
For the cultural sustainability, findings show that participants interacted very little with the local culture. Tourists, especially the international participants, seem to be curious to know the local cultures but the majority of them did not participate fully, or at all, in cultural activities. One possible explanation for these results may be the tour guides or that the BFMS management did not include most of the cultural aspect of the local communities in the tour activities or guides training. In addition, my results from interviews revealed that some tourists have concerns with respect to what activities they should do or not without offending the cultural values of the local people. Few tourists revealed their failed attempts to participate in cultural activities because of the differences in the local community lifestyles and theirs. For instance, one group visited a village near Mole National Park which seemed to disturb the local people at the village. It is important to bear in mind from my participatory observation some of the visitors (one group consists of 11 people out of 22 groups in my sample) visited the traditional priest for the culture, tradition, and history of the community based on the information they received from their tour guide. However, it should be noted that cultural activities such as homestay, cultural dance performers, and display must respect and prioritize the privacy of the local people. Respect to local community privacy includes seeking permission and the approval of the locals before any form of cultural interactions in their experience, especially taking pictures of the locals and of the local food. Further, locals could be involved in the design and implementation of cultural activities for tourists in a participatory and inclusive way to ensure their consent throughout the entire process.
107 | P a g e
5.3.2 Economic Sustainability
The economic component at BFMS is sustained when it can generate revenue and employment. The findings indicate that more tourists help to improve society in terms of income generation and improving the economic wellbeing of the people in the community. Results show that the management at BFMS generates income through participant entrance fees payment. The entrance fees paid by participants is used to create direct employment to the local people such as the tour guides. In this study I noticed that unlike other sites in Kenya (e.g. The Kimana
Community Wildlife Sanctuary) where the CBEs are driven by foreign investment and foreign ownership (Akama, 2014; Amati, 2013), the CBE project at BFMS is managed by the local community. Therefore, the Boabeng and Fiema communities make up the employee personnel for the ecotourism project at BFMS. The income generated by the BFMS management has been used to improve public facilities such as schools through provision of learning resources (e.g. books, pens), subsidizing water fees and maintaining water pipes, and others. In addition, findings show that socio-cultural sustainable development can be enhanced through the economic well-being of the local people. Findings indicate that local communities’ lifestyle at BFMS is largely improved through the development of small-scale business especially the local women who sell bananas and peanuts. It has been suggested that visitors purchasing power to local venders at destinations helps to generate income that contributes to the long-term conservation of ecotourism sites (Tsaur, Lin, and Lin, 2006). In this study I noticed one of the most important aspects of socio-cultural sustainability that was suggested by one tourist which could potentially improve the well-being of the local people is the introduction of homestay practices to the tourists. Despite the fact that most of the tourists (except one) preferred the guesthouse over the homestay, if managed properly the homestay has the potential of attracting visitors and hence can potentially increase income
108 | P a g e generated by the local people in the community. This kind of practice (the homestay) has been successful and it is serving as a source of people’s income at places such as the Saviki community in Taiwan and the Mognori Eco-village a fringe community at Mole National Park in Ghana
(Agyeman, 2014; Tsaur et al., 2006). The homestay practice can be critical to the local people at
BFMS because it has the potential to offer a valuable platform to integrate their culture into the ecotourism visitors experience at the site.
5.3.3 Environmental Sustainability
The environment is sustained when the ecotourism project preserves and protects the natural environment at BFMS. Data from interviews and my participatory observation shows that the preservation of the forest area played a great role in increasing the monkey’s population.
However, the environmental aspect of the ecotourism seems to be a little weak. I found that visitors’ activities and their interactions with the monkeys creates potential threats to their
(monkeys’) survival. Visitor activities such as feeding the monkeys, littering of garbage, noise pollution, and trampling on small vegetations threaten the environmental sustainability of the ecotourism site and can have profound impacts on the visitor experience and the long-term sustainability of the project itself.
I observed that participants’ interactions with the monkeys in their activities played a great role to stimulate exciting experiences for visitors. In due regards, the monkey population at BFMS is a key tourist attraction therefore, their (monkeys) conservation should be a priority. Surprisingly, tourists feeding the monkeys with bananas and peanuts seems to increase tourist’s satisfaction, but such activities have adverse impact to monkey’s behaviour as well as to human health and the natural environment. For instance, Ogunro (2017) argued that close interactions with monkeys can lead to disease transmission from monkeys to humans or both. In addition, feeding the monkeys
109 | P a g e has a great potential of changing monkeys’ behaviour which may also affect their reproduction, and life span. A study by Maréchal et al. (2016) for instance reports on a behavioral change of tourist fed and unfed Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) in Ifrane National Park Morocco.
Maréchal et al. (2016) observed that feeding by tourists has negative impacts on the health of monkeys, creating high mortality rate in fed groups as compared to low mortality rate to unfed group, high lameness in fed groups due to fighting for food, coughing and sneezing, and 32 occurrences of a variety of diseases present in the tourists fed group.
In this study, I also identified that large number of tourists at an area especially during weekends and holidays have led to noise pollution which have negative impacts on monkeys’ behaviours. For instance, it has been observed that as a part of their activity, colobus monkeys tend to sleep during the day, and the large number of tourists in the forests could potentially create noises and hence disrupt their sleeping time and eventually this may change their behaviour (see
Wong and Sicotte, 2007). Other environmental impacts caused by large numbers of visitors include trampling on small vegetation and increasing littering by dumping plastic waste in the sanctuary.
Trampling on small vegetation threaten the survival of the forest by limiting the growth of undergrowth vegetation as part of the forest. Moreover, I observed that introduction of pollutants such as plastic waste and other foreign substances threatens the ecosystem functioning at BFMS.
The results from this study therefore show that the present forms of tourist interaction weaken the ecotourism environmental sustainability at BFMS. Generally speaking, in the literature, over capacity of ecotourism can be a problem with a large number of tourists. In a study by Tsaur et al.
(2006) on the ecotourism sustainability project in the Saviki community in Taiwan, tourist interactions played a major role in destroying the environment at the destination. The Saviki community in Taiwan does not have the authority to restrict access and maintain carrying capacity
110 | P a g e of the destination (Tsaur et al., 2006). Over capacity is not generally a problem at BFMS but at times there are large number of groups in the forest that can have detrimental impacts on the environment. Fortunately, for the BFMS communities, the administration of BFMS has the authority to regulate visitor activities hence there is a great potential to sustain the environmental component. However, the local communities’ wellbeing depends on them selling products (e.g. banana and peanuts) to visitors, and the site depends on large groups of tourists for its economic sustainability. The challenge, therefore, is to not only put a cap on tourist capacity, but more importantly to implement an educational component which prioritizes the importance of sustaining the environment.
At present, the BFMS does not have a positive, mutually reinforcing interaction among the three components of the sustainability framework. The norms and practices in the park, in part due to tourist behaviour but also due to lack of information and education offered by the management, threatens the long-term sustainability of the park. A fine balance between the three components is challenging as over-emphasizing one component can often lead to negative implications for another. This study has provided insights into how such a balance can be maintained while improving the visitor experience.
111 | P a g e
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The main goal of this study was to investigate the ecotourism visitor experience and to examine sustainable ecotourism practices at BFMS. Based on my participant observation and interview results in this study, one of the most significant factors that contributes to the ecotourism visitor experience at BFMS is the presence of the two monkey species white-thighed colobus
(Colobus vellerosus), and Campbell’s mona monkey (Cercopithecus campbelli lowei). Most visitors were interested in nature-based activities, or wildlife attractions as well as most visitors were not interested in culturally-based activities such as the visiting of monkey cemetery and the priests house. I believe most visitors were not interested in culturally based activities due to the lack of knowledgeability of the guides about the history and the cultural richness of the area. In addition, there are a few areas that need improvement to increase visitors’ experiences. One important component is the improvement of the visitor center with things such as up to date information about the site and monkey behaviour, toilet facilities, and the historical information about the community and the site. Improving the overall sustainability of the project will be crucial for the project’s long-term success.
In terms of the sustainability aspect of the ecotourism project, BFMS does not fulfill all the requirements of sustainable development. While the economic component is sufficient at present
(e.g. generation of income and employment), the socio-culture and environmental components need improvement. I found that at the BFMS, the environment is sustained through the involvement of local people who often engage in protection of the forest and the monkeys living in the sanctuary. This aspect can also contribute to the overall visitor satisfaction whereby they
(visitors) expressed their satisfaction through interaction with the monkeys and how the
112 | P a g e communities have been able to protect them. However, the current forms of human-monkey interactions threaten the social-cultural sustainability. This is because the local people, in a process of improving their wellbeing, sell local products (peanuts and banana) to visitors. Visitors tend to feed bananas and peanuts to monkeys, and such practices may affect monkey behaviour.
Moreover, there is an absence of strict laws and regulations, or even educational components, that will prevent visitors from feeding monkeys with food, littering at the destination, having large groups entering the forest and with loud noise, and trampling on small vegetations.
In terms of socio-cultural sustainability, I report on one of the most significant findings: the documentation of the oral history and traditional methods for conserving and managing of the
BFMS by the local communities. In this study I found that the elders of the Boabeng and Fiema communities manage and protect the two monkey species using two deities: the Daworo and
Abudwo deities. According to the tradition, it is the responsibility of the local communities to protect them. For such reasons it is forbidden to hunt or kill the monkeys at the BFMS. These practices contribute to the long-term conservation and management of these species at the sanctuary. Also, the documentation of such traditional practices contributes to the cultural sustainability – an aspect that can be incorporated to the ecotourism project at the site. In terms of the social well being of the local communities, findings shows that social aspects can be sustained through the provision of education to the guides who may help to provide high quality experience and understanding on monkey’s ecology and how they interact with locals in the community. The local communities at BFMS have full control on the management of the ecotourism project at the sanctuary. This is critical for them to allow visitors to explore the history and the culture of the local communities, an attribute that can help sustain the socio-cultural element of ecotourism. The
113 | P a g e key strength of such activities helps to the preserve the local culture and conserve the surrounding environments.
6.2 Recommendations for Sustainable Ecotourism Practices
Based on the definition of sustainable development by Bhuiyan et al.’s (2012) this study I drawn on the findings provided by visitors to propose to the management and other stakeholders of BFMS several recommendations which may improve sustainable ecotourism practices.
1. Improvement of the BFMS information technology and website – The lack of information
technology (IT) in managing the ecotourism project at BFMS was noted to be influencing
their operations negatively. The findings of the study show that the sanctuary lacks an
adequate IT system including the internet to update information on the website of the
BFMS. Currently people search for information on the internet and book their trip prior to
their arrival to the destination. The inability of BFMS to respond and provide necessary
information to clients or consumers leads to clients deferring to different destinations. If
information technology and the website were improved, then it would attract more tourists
at the site since tourists generally depend on technology. Tourists need to have access to a
good website, secure communication, good pictures, and information because people like
to know what to expect. I propose that the management should acquire low-cost
technological training for the effective management of the ecotourism project. To achieve
this, I propose the involvement of multiple stakeholders such as the domestic or
international Universities or institutions for young enthusiastic volunteers with knowledge
in Information Technology who are willing to get firsthand experience in the field. This
will provide mutual benefits to the volunteers and the staff, where the volunteer impacts
technology training skills to the staff and also provides essential services such as updating
114 | P a g e
the website of the BFMS, providing booking information of BFMS, and also upgrading
visitor recording data from paper to paperless process. This will help management keep
track of all their activities and help visitors to easily access information about BFMS.
2. Improving Guides’ Communication Skills –The role of the guides is very important for the
visitor experience, but the guides are not all equal. The findings from this study show that
some guides may not be providing the same information (e.g. including more cultural and
historical components) as other guides. In order to improve the guides’ communication
skills, there is a need to include more training of the guides so that there can be more
consistency in the information provided to tourists among all the guides. I also recommend
that there is a need for a tour guide manual that all the guides should read and access to
improve their knowledgeability. Moreover, I propose collaborations with other institutes,
such as the University of Calgary, which can help to coordinate with the guides about
important implications of human-monkey interaction, such as feeding, pollution, noise, etc.
This kind of information can be part of the tour guide training and practice and will help to
protect the monkeys from changing their behaviours due to tourists’ activities.
3. Sustainability plan – the central research question of this research is about how the visitor
experience can contribute to the sustainable ecotourism practice at BFMS. Based on the
findings of this study, I recommend the following sustainability plans:
a) Socio-cultural sustainability – I recommend that the local community should include the
cultural component into the ecotourism project. This aspect will help to create more
employment opportunities to people as well as preserving the cultural and oral history of
the area. This aspect will improve the social wellbeing of the local people. For instance, a
proper training of tour guides regarding the site’s history and culture will help to integrate
115 | P a g e
and sustain the BFMS people’s culture. This is significant because it will add in a new
component of ecotourism (cultural component) as well as increase the rate of employment
(tour guides) who will in turn help to increase the visitors’ experience.
b) Economic sustainability – the BFMS economy can be sustained if infrastructure is improved to
support visitors’ activities. Visitors’ activities at BFMS depends on the availability of good road
networks especially during rainy season where most of the roads are inaccessible for walking and
driving by car. Infrastructure is linked to the economic sustainability of the site; therefore, the
presence of good roads will keep sustaining the economy of the area. I propose to improve
infrastructure through fundraising and requesting assistance from private and government
agencies such as the Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture, Ministry of Road and Highways to the
Government of Ghana. Also, BFMS management, in collaboration with other stakeholders, may
provide professional advice on the improvement of display facilities at the visitor center, the
selection of picnic areas and a children’s playground for outdoor recreational activities. In
addition, the BFMS management should improve other essential facilities such toilets.
c) Environmental sustainability – There is a need to preserve the site as a protected area for
the monkeys. Working together with the government for a proper legal framework is
needed to ensure the sustainability of BFMS. It is also crucial that the community members
maintain control over decision-making and implementation to avoid forms of tourism that
are corporatized and removed from the local context and local community members. In
addition, since the monkey population is increasing there is a strong need to control the
monkey population so that they will not invade the local people’s farms and eat their
products. This will help to reduce conflicts between the BFMS management and the local
communities who live near the site as well as ensuring the good harmony relationship that
the humans and monkeys have at the area. The concept of stewardship is an important
116 | P a g e
dimension in helping to achieve sustainable ecotourism for the sanctuary. Understanding
the carrying capacity of the site and ensuring that animal welfare issues are part of the
knowledge that helps to build toward stewardship of the land, wildlife and vegetation, and
community are part of moving the project toward sustainability (sustainable development).
The regulation guiding tourist’s interaction with monkeys has to be enforced to safeguard
animal and tourist’s welfare. This is something that BFMS must be careful about as the
visitors interacting with the monkeys could potentially lead to problems. For example, it
would become problematic if monkeys start becoming more aggressive when people are
interacting with them in irresponsible ways and if a visitor sued the sanctuary when a
monkey bits him/her.
4. Ecotourism Development Plan – The BFMS currently does not have a development or
business plan and that would play an important role in acquiring funds for the ecotourism
development. I recommend that the management collaborate with institutions who have
the potential of creating a development or business plan to aid BFMS in preparation of one.
6.3 Recommendations for Further Research
This thesis provided a baseline of the visitor experience at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey
Sanctuary (BFMS) and determined that there is an opportunity for sustainable ecotourism development. Findings from this study revealed that there are positive aspects, however, there are areas that need to be improved. I recommend that universities and research institutions have more collaborations between the socio-cultural anthropologists and primatologists in the future; this can help us understand the interdisciplinary nature of the ecotourism sites. In addition, the collaborations between primatologists and socio-cultural anthropologists can help produce more benefits between the monkeys and the communities. This is significant because the ecotourism is
117 | P a g e all about human-environment interactions. More specifically, ecotourism at BFMS relies on human-monkey interactions; it is about understanding monkey behaviour and preserving the natural environment and the relations between the monkeys and the community. Also, I recommend a follow up study on the sustainability of ecotourism project at BFMS focusing on the local peoples’ perspective. The results from the recommended topic combined with the results from this thesis will provide important support that can help the management implement effective strategies for successful ecotourism and contribute significantly to community sustainable development.
118 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Adam, I., Adongo, C. A., & Amuquandoh, F. E. (2017). A structural decompositional analysis of eco-visitors’ motivations, satisfaction and post-purchase behaviour. Journal of Ecotourism, 18(1),
60-81.
Adams, K. M. (2012). Ethnographic methods. In Dwyer, L., Gill, A., & Seetaram N. (Eds.),
Handbook of research methods in tourism (pp. 339-359). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Afenyo, E. A., & Amuquandoh, F. E. (2014). Who benefits from community-based ecotourism development? Insights from Tafi Atome, Ghana. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(2), 179-
190.
Agyekum, K. (2011). The ethnopragmatics of the Akan palace language of Ghana. Journal of
Anthropological Research, 67(4), 573-593.
Agyeman, Y. B. (2014). The role of local knowledge in sustaining ecotourism livelihood as an adaptation to climate change.
Akama, J. S. (2004). Neo-colonialism, dependency and external control of Africa’s tourism industry. Akama JS Tourism and postcolonialism: Contested discourses, identities and representations. London: Routledge, 140-152.
Amati, C. (2013). “We all voted for it”: experiences of participation in community-based ecotourism from the foothills of Mt Kilimanjaro. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 7(4), 650-
670.
Amuquandoh, F. E. (2017). Tourists’ motivations for visiting Kakum National Park, Ghana.
Ghana Journal of Geography, 9(1), 152-168.
119 | P a g e
Amuquandoh, F. E., Boakye, K. A., & Mensah, E. A. (2011). Ecotourism experiences of international visitors to the Owabi Wildlife Sanctuary, Ghana. Ghana Journal of Geography, 3(1),
250-284.
Atilgan, E., Akinci, S., & Aksoy, S. (2003). Mapping service quality in the tourism industry.
Managing Service Quality: Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 13 (5), 412-422.
Attuquayefio, D. K. S., & Gyampoh, S. (2010). The Boabeng-Fiema Monkey sanctuary, Ghana: a case for blending traditional and introduced wildlife conservation systems. West African Journal of Applied Ecology, 17(1), 1-10.
Awuah-Nyamekye, S. (2009). Teaching sustainable development from the perspective of indigenous spiritualities of Ghana. In de Pater, C., & Dankelman, I. (Eds.), Religion and sustainable development: Opportunities and challenges for higher education, (pp. 25-39). LIT
Verlag Munster.
Ayala, H. (1996). Resort ecotourism: a paradigm for the 21st century. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 46-53.
Bădescu, I., Wikberg, E. C., MacDonald, L. J., Fox, S. A., Vayro, J. V., Crotty, A., & Sicotte, P.
(2016). Infanticide pressure accelerates infant development in a wild primate. Animal Behaviour,
114, 231-239.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Sutherland, L. A. (2011). Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism:
Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism management, 32(4),
770-779.
Bhuiyan, M., Siwar, C., Ismail, S., & Islam, R. (2012). The role of ecotourism for sustainable development in East Coast Economic Region (Ecer), Malaysia. OIDA International Journal of
Sustainable Development, 3(9), 53-60.
120 | P a g e
Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls: country case studies. Washington DC:
World Wildlife Fund.
Bricker, K. (2017). The International Ecotourism Society. Travel and Tourism Research
Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally, 11, 1-10.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future - call for action. Environmental Conservation,
14(4), 291-294.
Camilleri, M. A., (2018). Travel marketing, tourism economics and the airline product. Springer
International Publishing.
Cater, E. (2006). Ecotourism as a western construct. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(1-2), 23-39.
Chan, J. K. L., & Baum, T. (2007a). Ecotourists' perception of ecotourism experience in lower
Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of sustainable tourism, 15(5), 574-590.
Chan, J. K. L., & Baum, T. (2007b). Motivation factors of ecotourists in ecolodge accommodation:
The push and pull factors. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 12(4), 349-364.
Chen, C. M., Chen, S. H., & Lee, H. T. (2011). The destination competitiveness of Kinmen's tourism industry: exploring the interrelationships between tourist perceptions, service performance, customer satisfaction and sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
19(2), 247-264.
Chesworth, N. (1995). Ecotourism seminar paper delivered in the Institute of Environmental
Studies and Management. UPLB. College, Laguna.
Christie, I., Fernandes, E., Messerli, H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2014). Tourism in Africa:
Harnessing tourism for growth and improved livelihoods. The World Bank.
121 | P a g e
Cobbinah, P. B., Amenuvor, D., Black, R., & Peprah, C. (2017). Ecotourism in the Kakum
Conservation Area, Ghana: Local politics, practice and outcome. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 20, 34-44.
Dey, I., 1993. Qualitative Data Analysis: A User Friendly Guide for Social Scientists.
London: Routledge.
Dodoo, R. (1971). Ashanti Cultural Resource Elements and Their Relevance to the Perception and
Utilization of Resources. African Studies Review, 14(1), 55-81.
Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Juvan, E. (2013). Ecotourists-Who are they and what should we really call them? International Handbook on Ecotourism, 95-107.
Donohoe, H. M., & Needham, R. D. (2006). Ecotourism: The evolving contemporary definition.
Journal of Ecotourism, 5(3), 192-210.
Eagles, P. F. (1992). The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research,
31(2), 3-7.
Eshun, G. (2010). Ecotourism development in Ghana: a postcolonial study with focus on Boabeng-
Fiema Monkey Sanctuary and Kakum National Park. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Leicester).
Eshun, G., & Tonto, J. N. P. (2014). Community-based ecotourism: its socio-economic impacts at
Boabeng-fiema monkey Sanctuary, Ghana. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 26(26),
67-81.
Eshun, G., Adjei, P. O. W., & Segbefia, A. Y. (2016). Beyond business as usual: Implications of tourist experiences for ecotourism development. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and
Leisure, 5(2), 1-26.
122 | P a g e
Fargey, P. (1991). Assessment of the Conservation Status of the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey
Sanctuary, unpublished Final Report to the Flora and Fauna Preservation Society, University of
Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Fargey, P. (1992). Boabeng–Fiema Monkey Sanctuary–an example of traditional conservation in
Ghana. Oryx, 26(3), 151-156.
Fennell, D. A. (1999). Ecotourism and Ecotourism. Ecotourism: An introduction. New York &
London: Routledge.
Fennell, D. A. (2003). Ecotourism in the South African context. Africa Insight 33, (1/2), 3-8.
Fennell, D. A. (2008). Ecotourism and the myth of indigenous stewardship. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 16(2), 129-149.
Fennell, D. A. (2014). Ecotourism: An introduction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ferguson, L. (2007). Production, consumption and reproduction in global political economy: the case of tourism development in Central America (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Manchester (United Kingdom)).
Ferraro, G., Andreatta, S., & Holdsworth, C. (2018). Cultural anthropology: An applied perspective. The Growth of Anthropological Theory, 4, 67-93. Canadian Edition.
Gilbert, D. C. (1990). Conceptual issues in the meaning of tourism. In C. P. Cooper (Ed.), Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 2). London: Pitman Publishing.
Ghana Tourism Authority (2011). Plan Your Visit. Retrieved from Ghana Tourism Authority: http://www.ghana.travel/
Ghana. Statistical Service. (2012). 2010 Population & Housing Census: Nkoranza North District
Analytical Report (Vol. 2). Ghana Statistical Service.
123 | P a g e
Government of Ghana (2019). Ghana to open up its tourism to Turkey. Government of Ghana
Official Portal. Available at
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The continuum of positionality in action research. The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty, 29-48.
Higham, J., & Carr, A. (2002). Ecotourism Visitor Experiences in Aotearoa/New Zealand:
Challenging the environmental values of visitors in pursuit of pro-environmental behaviour,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10:4, 277-294, DOI: 10.1080/09669580208667168.
Holmes, T. D. (2011). Dispersal in a Fragmented Habitat: The Spatial Genotypic Structure of
Colobus vellerosus at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana (M. A. Thesis University of
Calgary).
Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hyslop, C. M. (2009). Sustainable Tourism: Understanding Development Goals for Rock
Climbing Businesses in Krabi Province, Thailand. M.A dissertation. Royal Roads University.
ProQuest.
IUCN 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 19 March 2020.
Kankam, B. O. (2010). Colobus population dynamics and forest change in a fragmented habitat in Central Ghana. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Kankam, B. O., Saj, T. L., & Sicotte, P. (2010). How to measure “success” in community-based conservation projects: The case of Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary in Ghana. In The Political
Economy of Development in Ghana: Critiques of Theory. K.P. Puplampu and W.J. Tettey, eds.
124 | P a g e
Accra, Ghana: Woeli Publishing Services.
Kankam, B. O., & Sicotte, P. (2013). The effect of forest fragment characteristics on abundance of Colobus vellerosus in the forest-savanna transition zone of Ghana. Folia Primatologica, 84(2),
74-86.
Kassean, H., & Gassita, R. (2013). Exploring tourists push and pull motivations to visit Mauritius as a tourist destination. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 2(3), 1-13.
Kiper, T. (2013). Role of ecotourism in sustainable development. Advances in Landscape
Architecture. InTech. (pp. 773-802) http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55749.
Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(5), 232-237.
Kusler, J. A. (Ed.). (1991). Ecotourism and Resource Conservation: Second International
Symposium, November 27-December 2, 1990: Volume 2. Ecotourism and Resource Conservation
Project.
Larsen, T. B., Aduse-Poku, K., & Sáfián, S. (2009). The Butterflies of Boabeng-Fiema Monkey
Sanctuary—Biodiversity and Extinction in a Forest Fragment in Ghana. African Entomology,
17(2), 131-146.
Lassiter, L., Cook, S., Field, L., Jaarsma, S., Peacock, J., Rose, D., ... & Lassiter, L. (2005).
Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology. Current Anthropology, 46(1), 83-106.
Leask, A. (2016) Visitor attraction management: A critical review of research 2009-2014. Tourism
Management, 57, 334-361.
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
125 | P a g e
Maréchal L., Semple S., Majolo, B., & MacLarnon A. (2016). Assessing the effects of tourist provisioning on the health of wild Barbary macaques in Morocco. PLOS ONE, May 2016 DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0155920
Marcus, G. E., & Faubion, J. D. (2009). Fieldwork is not what it used to be: Learning anthropology’s method in a time of transition (pp. 1-31). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Rowman Altamira, 2011 (Chapter 1, 1‐14).
Mbaiwa, J. (2002). Past and present perspectives on the sustainable use of wildlife resources among Basarwa communities in Ngamiland district, Botswana: the Case of Khwai and Mababe.
Pula: Botswana journal of African studies, 16(2), 110-121.
Nakamura, M., and Nishida, T. (2009). Chimpanzee tourism in relation to the viewing regulations at Mahale National Park, Tanzania. Primate Conservation, 24, 85-90.
Ogunro, B., Olugasa, B., Olaleru, F., & Oladiti, F. (2017). Human–monkey interaction on a
University campus in Nigeria: An avenue for zoonotic disease transmission at the human wildlife interface?. Sokoto Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 15(2), 54-61.
Okech, R. N. (2011). Ecotourism development and challenges: A Kenyan experience. Tourism
Analysis, 16(1), 19-30.
Ormsby, A. (2012). Cultural and conservation values of sacred forests in Ghana. Sacred species and sites: advances in biocultural conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx. doi. org/10.1017/cbo9781139030717, 32, 335-350.
Owusu, V., & Boafo, Y. A. (2018). Opportunities and Challenges for Multi-Level-Stakeholder
Participation in Community-Based Ecotourism Development: The Case of the Boabeng-Fiema
Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana. Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea, 21(1), 53-
68. https://doi.org/10.23841/EGSK.2018.21.1.53
126 | P a g e
Page, J.S. and Dowling, R.K. (2002). Ecotourism: Themes in tourism. Essex: Pearson Education.
Raymond, E. M., & Hall, C. M. (2008). The development of cross-cultural (mis) understanding through volunteer tourism. Journal of sustainable tourism, 16(5), 530-543.
Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age.
Sustainable development, 13(4), 212-227.
Redclift, M. (2018). Sustainable development in the age of contradictions. Development and
Change, 49(3), 695-707.
Republic of Ghana (2012). National Tourism Development Plan (2013-2027). Republic of Ghana:
Accra. Available at Development-Plan.pdf>. Accessed 26 May 2019. Rostow, W. W. (1990). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge university press. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85- 109. Saj, T. L., Mather, C., & Sicotte, P. (2006). Traditional taboos in biological conservation: the case of Colobus vellerosus at the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Central Ghana. Social Science Information, 45(2), 285-310. Saj, T.L., & Sicotte, P. (2013). Colobus vellerosus White-Thighed Colobus (Geoffroy’s Pied Colobus, Ursine Colobus). Eds In Mammals of Africa. Kingdon, J., Happold, D., Butynski, T., Hoffmann, M., Happold, M., & Kalina, J. (Vol. 2). A&C Black, 109-111. Sammy, J. (2010). Exploring the sustainability of place: A case study of community-based nature tourism. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 127 | P a g e Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245-249. Shea, R. H. (2014). “Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?” National Geographic Society. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140320-animal-sanctuary-wildlife-exotic- tiger-zoo. Sivo, L.C. (2006). Ecotourism and environmental conservation: A case study of Nacula District, Fiji (Unpublished Master of Arts Thesis). University of the South Pacific. Suva, Fiji. Stem, C. J., Lassoie, J. P., Lee, D. R., Deshler, D. D., & Schelhas, J. W. (2003). Community participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives. Society and Natural Resources, 16(5), 387-413. Stronza, A. (2001). Anthropology of tourism: Forging new ground for ecotourism and other alternatives. Annual review of anthropology, 30(1), 261-283. Stuart, C., & Stuart, T. (2017). Field guide to the larger mammals of Africa. Struik Publishers. 4th edition. Swanson, S. R., & Davis, J. C. (2003). The relationship of differential loci with perceived quality and behavioral intentions. Journal of Services Marketing. Teichroeb, J. A., Holmes, T. D., & Sicotte, P. (2012). Use of sleeping trees by ursine colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus) demonstrates the importance of nearby food. Primates, 53(3), 287- 296. The International Ecotourism Society (1990). Definition and principles. Retrieved from htttp://www.ecotourism.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates Tsaur, S. H., Lin, Y. C., & Lin, J. H. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism management, 27(4), 640-653. 128 | P a g e UNWTO. (2010). International tourism on track for a rebound after an exceptionally challenging 2009. UNWTO. (2019). International Tourism Highlights Presents A Concise Overview of International Tourism in The World Based on The Results for The Year 2018. Retrieved from https://www.e- unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284421152 Vanhove, N. (2011). The economics of tourism destinations. Routledge. Vayro, J. V., Fedigan, L. M., Ziegler, T. E., Crotty, A., Ataman, R., Clendenning, R. & Sicotte, P. (2016). Hormonal correlates of life history characteristics in wild female Colobus vellerosus. Primates, 57(4), 509-519. Wallace, G. N., & Pierce, S. M. (1996). An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of tourism research, 23(4), 843-873. Wall, G. (2007). Sustainable development, sustainable tourism and sustainable livelihoods.: paper prepared for the 2007, International Tourism Biannual in Canakkele, Turkey. Available on http:/turizm.commu.edu.tr/conference Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism management, 28(5), 1168-1179. Wiafe, E. (2014). Forest Structure and Composition of Trees in Two Sympatric Anthropoid Primates’ Habitat in Ghana. Eurasian Journal of Forest Science, 2(1), 1-14. Wight, P. A. (1996). North American ecotourists: Market profile and trip characteristics. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 2-10. Wong, S. N., & Sicotte, P. (2006). Population size and density of Colobus vellerosus at the Boabeng‐Fiema Monkey Sanctuary and surrounding forest fragments in Ghana. American Journal of Primatology, 68(5), 465-476. 129 | P a g e Wong, S. N., & Sicotte, P. (2007). Activity budget and ranging patterns of Colobus vellerosus in forest fragments in central Ghana. Folia Primatologica, 78(4), 245-254. World Bank Group (2020). Climate change knowledge portal for development practitioners and policymakers. Retrieve 17th September 2020. https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/ghana/climate-data-historical World Tourism Organization (2004). Tourism 2020 vision. World Tourism Organization, Madrid: retrieved from htttp://unwto.org/facts/eng/vision.htm World Tourism Organization (2019). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer and Statistical Annex, January 2019. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain. [online] URL: https://www.e- unwto.org/doi/abs/10.18111/wtobarometereng.2019.17.1.1 WTTC (2020), Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2019, WTTC 2019 Annual Report, World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), Available, on April 6th, 2020 at: https://www.wttc.org/- /media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/regions-2019/world2019.pdf Würtenberger, L., Bunzeck, I. G., & Van Tilburg, X. (2011). Initiatives related to climate change in Ghana. Towards change in Ghana (No. ECN-E--11-010). Energy research Centre of the Netherlands ECN. Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management (Vol. 3). Cabi. 130 | P a g e APPENDICES Appendix 1. Visitors Semi-structured interviewed script. 1. What is the reason for your visit to BFMS? 2. How were you able to get information about BFMS? Did you pre-contact any of the staff or the manager for enquiries prior to your arrival at BFMS? 3. What are the activities did you undertake in your tour activities? 4. What was your expectation for your visit to BFMS? 5. What spike or did not spike your excitement at BFMS? 6. Did you feed the monkeys? If yes, why? If no, why? 7. Would you prefer to spend your night in a homestay or at the guesthouse? What is the reason for your choice? 8. Provide your satisfactory comments with your experience on the following at BFMS a. Tour guides and tour guiding b. Trails c. Wildlife d. Guesthouse e. Forest f. Sanitation 131 | P a g e Appendix 2.1. A picture of C. vellerosus (Black and white Colobus) on the ground at BFMS. Source: Author (fieldwork, 2019). Appendix 2.2. A picture of C. campbelli lowei (Mona monkey) on the ground at BFMS. Source: Author (fieldwork, 2019). 132 | P a g e Appendix 2.3. A visitor’s car stuck on the road to BFMS. Source: Author (fieldwork, 2019). Appendix 2.4. Visitors taking pictures at the BFMS monkey cemetery. Source: Author (fieldwork, 2019). 133 | P a g e Appendix 2.5. Visitors at the Ficus tree at BFMS. Source: Author (fieldwork, 2019). 134 | P a g e Appendix 3. Visitors’ trails at BFMS. Source: Ormsby (2012). 135 | P a g e