Tourism Review International, Vol. 21, pp. 81–98 1544-2721/17 $60.00 + .00 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/154427217X14866652018947 Copyright © 2017 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 1943-4421 www.cognizantcommunication.com

BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF COMMUNITY-BASED IN PARK-FRINGE COMMUNITIES: THE CASE OF MESOMAGOR OF KAKUM NATIONAL PARK,

ISHMAEL MENSAH

Department of Hospitality and Management, University of , Cape Coast, Ghana

Community-based ecotourism (CBE) is seen as a viable model for achieving conservation and improved livelihoods for park-fringe communities. In view of that, many communities in Ghana, including Mesomagor, have embraced the concept. Yet, most studies have employed quantitative methods and failed to examine the challenges of community participation in ecotourism ­development. Therefore, this study employed qualitative methods to analyze the benefits and challenges of CBE in the Mesomagor community of the Kakum National Park. This involved key informant interviews of 15 stakeholders using a semistructured interview guide. The results of the study show that though the community had made some modest economic gains, especially in infrastructural development, the project was confronted with a number of challenges including apathy towards participation, limited employment and revenue-sharing opportunities, lack of local capacity to manage the project, and destruction of farms by stray elephants from the park.

Key words: Community-based ecotourism (CBE); Community; Revenue sharing; Kakum National Park (KNP); Ghana

Introduction miners, hunters, and gatherers, the pursuit of their economic activities could eventually result in the Community-based ecotourism (CBE) projects have depletion of natural resources. However, CBE pro- become a two-edged sword for achieving natural vides a more sustainable way of managing these resource conservation and improved livelihoods of natural resources by fostering conservation through host communities (Spenceley & Snyman, 2012). For the involvement of local communities, which in turn rural communities, whose main sources of liveli- provides economic incentives to the communities. hood are natural resources such as forests, there is the Agenda 21, which is a blueprint for action by risk of overexploitation of these natural resources. host communities introduced by the 1992 Rio Earth Because most of the people are farmers, loggers, Summit, calls for tourism–community interactions

Address correspondence to Ishmael Mensah, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana. Tel: +233243134578; E-mail: [email protected] 81 82 MENSAH that are essential for sustainable development strat­ the Nature Conservation Research Centre (NCRC) egies. In view of this, there was recognition of have promoted CBE projects through some interven- the need to link conservation of resources with tions (Mensah & Adofo, 2013). The legal mandate the development needs of rural population at the of the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commis- inception of the concept of sustainable develop- sion of Ghana includes assisting local communities ment (Gilmour, 1995). In response to this, CBE to develop and manage their own forest reserves as projects have become popular all over the world. well as the promotion of ecotourism in protected Also, growing awareness of the need for more areas. To this end, the agency is actively collabo- “resident-responsive”­ tourism or a more democratic rating with some communities in the development participation in tourism decision making by grass- and management of CBE projects. These include roots members of a destination has occasioned the Boabeng Fiema, Agumatsa, and Tafi Atome wild- growth of community-based tourism (Moscardo, life sanctuaries. Additionally, a model of CBE 2008). CBE has been defined as “tourism which developed by the NCRC, an environmental NGO, focuses on to areas with natural attractions has proven to be successful in 14 communities (rather than, say, urban locales), and which con- around Ghana including Paga, Sirigu, Tanoboase, tributes to environmental conservation and local Amedzofe, and Bobiri. Aside the CBEPs, Ghana livelihoods” (Nelson, 2004, p. 3). It represents a has some seven national parks including Mole, bottom-up approach to tourism development and Digya, Bia, and Kakum, which serve as primary natural resource management (Koster, 2007). tourism attractions. According to Gray (2003), ecotourism offers a The Kakum National Park (KNP) is undoubt- market-based approach for the pursuit of both con- edly the most popular national park in Ghana—it servation and development. It promotes sustainable attracts thousands of visitors each year even though use of biodiversity in order to provide opportunities tourist arrivals have been declining since 2012 for revenue generation and employment (Mowforth (Fig. 1). This drop in visitor arrivals has been attrib- & Munt, 2009). This is particularly the case with uted to the deplorable state of the 13 km road from CBE because the host community takes part in the Cape Coast to the park. The road has become a decision-making processes relating to ecotourism death trap as huge trenches had developed on the development (Dei, 2000; Tosun, 2000; Zhao & surface of the road, putting the lives of visitors who Ritchie, 2007). Active local participation in deci- ply the road in danger. The history of KNP dates sion making is a prerequisite if benefits are to reach back to 1925 when it was first declared a forest communities (Li, 2006). The underlying principle reserve, but due to ineffective supervision it was of CBE is that the natural environment must pay heavily exploited for a very long time and remained for itself by generating economic benefits for a pale shadow of a rainforest until it was gazetted the local community and the economic benefits as a national park in 1992 by Legislative Instru- derived should foster proenvironmental attitudes ment 1525 and officially opened to visitors in 1994 and behaviors (Kiss, 2004). (Ghana Wildlife Division, 1994). Available evidence supports the fact that CBE The use of the CBE approach is very relevant to promotes biodiversity conservation. Kruger (2005) the conservation of the KNP. This is because the reported that in a study of 57 projects, conservation park shares boundaries with a number of rural com- occurred in 17% that had communities involved munities. The park is surrounded by 52 villages in decision making. World Wide Fund (2001) has and over 400 hamlets within the first 5 km from also observed that through participatory approach to the Park’s boundary. These communities existed ecotourism development and management, sustain- before the creation of the national park and have able use and collective responsibility of the natural carved their livelihoods out of the forest resources resources have been achieved and individual initia- by engaging in hunting, logging, and harvesting tives within the community have been embraced. of other forest products. Currently, most of the In Ghana, the government through the Forestry inhabitants are farmers who grow cocoa, oil palm, Commission and nongovernmental organizations like coffee, citrus, or coconut, often in close proximity BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ECOTOURISM 83

Figure 1. Tourist arrivals at the Kakum National Park. Source: Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust (2016). to the park. As such efforts at conserving the forest lofty environmental and socioeconomic gains that could prove futile if the fringe communities are not community participation in ecotourism develop- actively involved as conflicts are bound to occur ment is supposed to engender in the communi- between park authorities and the communities. ties fringing the KNP are far from being achieved According to de Sherbinin (2008), national parks as community members live in abject poverty have both contributed to marginalization and pov- (Akyeampong, 2011). The KNP has attracted some erty in rural communities that have been excluded research interest. These include studies on crop from parks by modifying the boundaries of such raiding by elephants (Barnes et al., 2003; Monney, communities and through the control of land use. Dakwa, & Wiafe, 2010) and economic valuation The establishment of the national park in 1992 of the park (Nanang & Owusu, 2010; Twerefou & was to bring to an end the exploitation of the forest Ababio, 2012). However, most of the studies have and its resources. The energies of the local com- been on community livelihoods (Abane, Awusabo- munities were to be channeled profitably into the Asare, & Kissi, 1999; Akyeampong, 2011; Appiah- conservation of the forest. To this end, the Wild- Opoku, 2011; Cobbinah, 2015). Generally, these life Division of the Forestry Commission of Ghana studies on the livelihoods of fringe communities developed the Collaborative Wildlife Manage- have provided evidence to the fact that the major- ment Policy, which sought to ensure more active ity of community members have not experienced participation of local communities in wildlife improved livelihoods as a result of ecotourism. management. The principle behind the Collab- However, the challenges to the achievement of orative Wildlife Management Policy is that when improved livelihoods resulting from CBE have not natural resources are given value and the com- been examined. Moreover, most of these studies munities are given the authority and motivation have employed a quantitative approach thereby to manage them, it will result in improved liveli- ignoring the fine details of the personal experi- hoods, enhanced wildlife protection, and greater ences of community members. Therefore, this democratization and accountability at the local study employs qualitative methods to examine the level (Wildlife Division of Forestry Commission, benefits and challenges of CBE in the Mesomagor 2004). In spite of this intervention, it appears the community of the KNP. 84 MENSAH

Literature Review However, there are different degrees of partici- pation. Participation is seen as a ladder indicating Community Participation different degrees of participation (Arnstein, 1969; Community participation as a model of tourism Bretty, 2003; Pretty, Guijt, Thompson, & Scoones, development has received considerable attention 1995). Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation, within the tourism literature. It is seen as a bottom-​ which identifies eight levels of citizen participation, up approach to tourism planning and development ranges from manipulation or therapy of citizens, and premised on the inclusion of local people in where participation is a sham, through consultation, the development of the tourism industry (Koster, to citizen control, which is regarded as real participa- 2007). Participation by local people means that tion. Tosun’s (2000) model of community participa- they have a great deal of control over the activi- tion relates specifically to community-based tourism ties that take place at the destination and a signifi- development. The model classifies the types of com- cant proportion of the economic benefits accrue to munity participation into three, namely: spontaneous them (Scheyvens, 2002). Thus, the characteristics participation, coercive participation, and induced par- of community participation include local control ticipation. Spontaneous participation is a bottom-up of development, community involvement in plan- to participation where ideas and decisions regarding ning, equitable flow of benefits, and incorporation tourism development in the community are made at of resident values (Koster, 2007). According to the local level. Coercive and induced participation Asker, Boronyak, Carrard, and Paddon (2010), are both top down. With the former, the local com- often, community-based tourism is developed on munity has no control at all over tourism develop- a small scale and involves interactions between ment, while with the latter, community members visitors and residents and is particularly suited to have limited choices regarding tourism development communities in rural areas. Manyara and Jones in their community. (2007) are also of the view that it is a sustainable, community-owned and community-based tourism Benefits of Community Participation initiative that boosts conservation and in which the local community is fully involved throughout Many authors have highlighted the benefits of its development and management and are the main community participation in tourism to host commu- beneficiaries through the development of their nities and the environment. A range of studies about communities. community-based tourism initiatives have con- The community-based tourism model is a com- firmed its potential benefits to communities, espe- mon approach to tourism management in park-fringe cially “commercially grounded” initiatives (Dixey, communities and usually covers community-owned 2005; Epler Wood & Jones, 2008). According to Li lodges, guiding, concessions, and other tourism ser- (2006), many researchers believe that when local vices and for which economic benefits are retained communities are involved in decision making, then in the local communities (Scherl & Edwards, they can derive benefits and the traditional lifestyles 2007). However, community participation in tour- and values of the communities can be respected ism devel­opment can be observed from two differ- (Li, 2006). Thus, through the participation process ent angles: participation of the local community in actual negative impacts as well as negative per- the decision-making process and participation in the ceptions of tourism can be lessened and the over- sharing of the benefits of tourism (Wijesundara & all quality of life, whether real or perceived, of all Wimalaratana, 2016). On account of the foregoing, stakeholders can be increased (Byrd, Bosley, & community participation in tourism could be seen Dronberger, 2009). as a model of tourism development whereby local Scheyvens (2002) is of the view that the ultimate communities take an active role in the management goal of community-based tourism is to empower of tourism in their communities, are empowered to the host community at four levels: economic, psy- take control over the entire tourism development chological, social, and political. process, and are direct beneficiaries of the resultant However, the much talked about benefit of benefits of tourism development. community participation is improvement in the BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ECOTOURISM 85 economic fortunes of host communities in the forms that threaten peoples’ crops, their livestock, or of income and employment (Walpole & Goodwin, themselves. Mogaka, Simons, Turpie, Emerton, and 2001; Wunder, 2000). Wunder (2000) argues that Karanja (2001) are also of the view that improve- ecotourism has a greater potential to cause large ments in local welfare, and the provision of visible changes in the household economy more than the local benefits from forests, will engender commu- other kinds of tourism because it usually occurs in nity support for protected areas and reduce unsus- relatively isolated areas of the world where people tainable or illegal forest activities. are distant from markets and have little income. Waithaka (2002), in an assessment of the Evidence from a study in Nicaragua on commu- Il Ngwesi Ecotourism Project in Kenya based on nity-based tourism projects indicated that tourism vegetation sampling and animal sightings along had created employment and income for host com- transects, found higher numbers and densities of munities (Zapata, Hall, Lindo, & Vanderschaeghe, tree and herbaceous species, and 93% more sight- 2011). However, the benefits need not always be ings of wildlife inside the sanctuary than on simi- financial because usually the intangible benefits lar ranch land outside the project area. R. Taylor such as skills development, increased confidence, (2009) points to the Communal Areas Programme growing trust, and ownership of the project may be for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRUE) project of greater value to the community (Clarke, 2002). in Zimbabwe where the assignment of de facto Other intangible benefits are that it may help to rights to occupiers of titled land as custodians of build skills in leadership among community mem- wildlife, fish, and plants by the legally mandated bers and strengthen local institutions (Stronza & authority responsible for wildlife management in Gordillo, 2008). the country led to a reduction in resource degrada- Another important benefit of community partici- tion. Stronza and Pêgas (2008), in a study on the pation in ecotourism, which is somewhat related link between ecotourism and nature conservation to the economic benefits, is conservation. The in Brazil and Peru, found out that ecotourism cre- argument put forth is that incomes from ecotour- ates strong links between economic benefits and ism could serve as incentive for conservation and nature conservation. The Brazil case indicated that thereby discourage other socioeconomic activi- economic benefits alone stimulated conservation, ties that have greater impacts on natural resources. while the Peru case illustrated that the participa- CBE by its nature ensures the sustainable use of tion of local community in tourism management biodiversity and this offers the opportunity for host stimulates collective actions in nature conserva- communities to derive revenue and employment tion. A more successful example of community- (Mowforth & Munt, 2009). Bhanoo (2015) has also based tourism and conservation has been found argued that CBE leads to conservation through rural at Tortuguero National Park in Costa Rica, where development because villagers and local people are a US-based environmental NGO, the Caribbean more inclined to support biodiversity conservation Conservation Corporation, has promoted tourism and follow park rules if they were involved in it. to replace income earned through a marine turtle Sustainable management of natural resources is harvest (Campbell, 2002). most likely in a situation where local users are able It has been further argued that community par­ to manage and extract benefits from those resources ticipation helps to reduce conflicts and misunder- (Jones & Murphree, 2001; Kull, 2002). Thus, eco­ standings among host communities, park authorities, tourism can be used as a tool for conservation so long and tourists. Hardy, Beeton, and Pearson (2002) as the locals derive economic benefits and it does indicated that community participation is believed not endanger or interfere with their main sources of to reduce opposition to tourism development, mini- livelihood (Walpole & Godwin, 2001). Kiss (2004) mize negative impacts, and revitalize the econo- also points to the fact that conservation organiza- mies of host communities. Another way by which tions fund CBE projects as a means of reducing it helps to reduce conflicts is through improvement local threats to biodiversity, which is the result of in people–park collaborations, which contributes expanding agriculture, unsustainable harvesting of to the understanding of local issues and promotes wild plants and animals, and killing of wildlife knowledge sharing (West, Igoe, & Brockington, 86 MENSAH

2006). Zhang, Inbakaran, and Jackson (2006) have Yunez-Naude, & Ardila 2003). Increased income also indicated that ignoring community input in tour- from ecotourism may allow people to invest in ism development could lead to soured host–tourist new technologies such as shotguns, chainsaws, or encounters and the eventual decline of tourism in tree-climbing equipment and thereby intensify their the destination. farming and foraging (Stronza, 2007). In spite of the much-touted benefits, there is also a school of thought that community participation Challenges of Community Participation in ecotourism may not deliver the supposed eco- nomic and environmental benefits (Goodwin & Many authors are of the view that the problems Santilli, 2009; Stronza & Godillo, 2008). The argu- encountered with the community-based tourism ment for community participation is sometimes approach stem from the methods and techniques put across as if all members of the local commu- used in their implementation (Mowforth & Munt, nity derive the same benefits. However, previous 2009). For instance, Ashley, Roe, and Goodwin studies have shown that not all local people will be (2001) identified the lack of human capital, lack of equally involved in or affected by tourism activities financial capital, lack of organization, location bar- and impacts resulting from involvement may vary riers for the people who live far from tourism sites, by gender, class, or other characteristics (Stronza lack of market power resulting from difficulties of 2001). Brody (2003) has argued that participation ownership or control over resources, low bargain- may not necessarily improve the quality of out- ing power against foreign tourism investors, and comes due to the interaction of competing interests. limited capacity to meet tourists’ requirements as This is against the backdrop that communities are the constraints to community participation in tour- usually heterogeneous with different interest groups ism. Evidence from a critical study on community- who may seek their own interests. These include based tourism in Latin America by Mitchell and local elites who may dominate the entire process Muckosy (2008) showed a lack of financial viabil- (Tosun, 2000). ity, poor market access, and poor governance as Tosun (2000) also observed that opportunities for obstacles. According to Goodwin (2009), although local communities to participate in ecotourism may the poor can benefit from ecotourism and CBT, vary over time with the type and scale of tourism there is rarely any connection with the mainstream development, thresholds of entry, and the market industry, and they remain small in scale and often served. In fact, under certain circumstances the lack a market and commercial orientation. local communities could be worse off with CBE Cole (2006) indicates that community partici- such as when they suffer crop, livestock, and prop- pation is inhibited by institutional factors such as erty damage, while deriving little benefit from park centralized decision-making processes, unwilling­ activities (Wells, 1996). Around the KNP, damage ness to include host community residents in deci- to crops by straying elephants is a constant prob- sion making, and lack of knowledge about how lem confronting the communities around the park to participate among host communities. The igno­ (Barnes et al., 2003; Boafo et al., 2004; Monney et rance and knowledge deficit on how to partici- al., 2010). In the years 2001 and 2002, one third of pate, which stem from insufficient training and the farms within one km of the park boundary were educational opportunities for local communities, raided by elephants (Barnes et al. 2003). has also been highlighted by Mbaiwa (2005) and Also, the argument for ecotourism as a tool for Salazar (2012) as barriers to community participa- conservation has also been contested. Research tion. Manyara and Jones (2007) also found lack of has shown that ecotourism hardly replaces other skills and knowledge, elitism, leakage of revenue, relatively destructive activities and that it rather lack of transparency in benefit-sharing, and lack of becomes an add on that exacerbates degradation. an appropriate policy framework for the develop- In this regard, new income can ultimately worsen ment of community initiatives to have significant habitat loss by increasing the buying power of local impacts on community participation in the tourism residents for more labor, technology, and capital, industry. Cole (2006), on the other hand, identified which they use to expand resource use (J. A. Taylor, lack of ownership, capital, skills, knowledge, and BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ECOTOURISM 87 resources as barriers to active local community par- Conservation Area (Fig. 2). It is located in the ticipation. However, Tosun (2000) provides three of Ghana, specifically the Twifo broad categories of limitations that encapsulate Heman Lower Denkyira District and Assin District all the challenges, namely: operational limitations at approximately 35 km north of Cape Coast, the (centralization of authority, lack of coordination, capital city of the Central Region of Ghana. It lies lack of information, etc.), structural limitations between latitudes 50 20ʹ and 50 40ʹ north and longi- (lack of expertise, elite domination, lack of trained tudes 10 30ʹ and 10 51ʹ west covering 366 km2 with human resources, etc.), and cultural limitations a boundary length of 102 km, which stretches from (limited capacity, apathy and low level of aware- Abrafo Odumase to . It is an isolated ness of local people, etc.). fragment of the Upper Guinea forests that once Blaikie (2006) found out that community-based covered southwestern Ghana. natural resource management programs in central According to Agyare (1995), it is a forest island and southern failed substantially to deliver in a landscape mosaic of cultivations comprising on the expected and theoretically predicted ben- farm bush, secondary forest, and swampland. It efits to both communities and the environment. In serves as a home for more than five globally endan- the Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust (KRST) Cen- gered mammalian species, namely forest elephant, tral District of Bostwana, Sebele (2010) found out yellow backed Duiker, black and colobus monkey, that residents were unhappy because they had lost Diana monkey, and . In addition, it houses a number of valuable natural resources including many birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians communal land as a result of the community-based as well as insects and butterflies. However, what tourism project. In this regard, community mem- makes the park truly unique is a Canopy Walkway bers believed that they had incurred more costs which allows visitors to explore the rainforest by than benefits. Stone and Stone (2011), in a related walking on suspended bridges and tree platforms study in the same area (Khama Rhino Sanctuary rising above the forest. Trust, Botswana), also found out that the communi- Among the communities fringing the KNP is ties faced challenges and constraints such as loss of Mesomagor, the study area. It is located on the cattle grazing and other land-related benefits, lack eastern corridor of the park, about 40 km north- of communication with the community, lack of ben- west of Cape Coast. Typical of rural communities efits, low levels of employment, and slow progress in Ghana, the people of Mesomagor are predomi- of the project, which hindered their participation in nantly farmers and have limited formal education community-based enterprises. Cobbinah, Black, and (Cobbinah, 2015; Mensah, 2016). The choice of Thwaites (2015) discovered that in the communities Mesomagor as the study area was due to the fact of Abrafo and Mesomagor in the Kakum Conserva- that among the communities fringing the KNP, it is tion Area of Ghana, only a limited number of people one of the communities with a CBE project, which were employed from the host communities and the is the subject of this study. Appiah Opoku (2011) lack of qualifications among community members avers that among the communities on the boundar- was an impediment to assuming supervisory posi- ies of the KNP, Mesomagor is the only community tions for the few local people employed. Manyara that has been innovative in creating a CBE plan to and Jones (2007), after examining six CBET initia- attract tourists and generate revenue. In 1994, Con- tives in Kenya, concluded that “outsiders” promoted servation International (CI) initiated a CBE project neocolonialism, enforced western environmental- in the community as part of the Natural Resource ism, and reinforced dependency. Conservation and Historic Preservation Project. The goals of the project were to provide a unique overnight tropical forest experience for adventur- Methodology ous tourists and generate economic benefits for conservation efforts in Kakum in general and the The Study Area Mesomagor community in particular. An aspect of The KNP, together with the Assin Antandanso the project was capacity building through training Resource Reserve, is known as the Kakum to empower community members to eventually 88 MENSAH

Figure 2. Location of Kakum National Park showing the study area. Source: GIS and Cartography Unit, Depart- ment of Geography and Regional Planning, UCC. BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ECOTOURISM 89 take control of the project. The project afforded Heritage Conservation Trust and Wildlife Division tourists who visited the community the opportu- of the forestry Commission. nity to sleep overnight in a treehouse, hike through Prior to data collection, permission to conduct the the forest, embark on farm tours, watch cultural study was sought from the Chief and elders of the performances by the Bamboo Orchestra, and to community during which drinks were presented to be accommodated in a guesthouse. One notable the Chief as tradition demanded. There is an Akan development as part of the project is the Bamboo adage that “one does not go to the chief’s palace with Orchestra (Kukyekyeku), which performs regularly empty hands.” The interviews were conducted by the at the KNP as well as entertain visitors who visit researcher between October 6 and October 25, 2016. the Mesomagor community. Because respondents were mostly farmers, arrange- ments were made by the researcher to conduct the interviews on Tuesdays and Sundays when they did Methods of Data Collection and Analysis not go to farm. Interviews were conducted in Twi, This study followed the interpretivist paradigm. the local dialect, and lasted for 1 hour on the aver- Qualitative research methodology was employed age. The interviews were recorded with the permis- involving in-depth semistructured interviews of sion of respondents. key informants. Qualitative research shares the Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) theoretical assumptions of the interpretative para- six phase approach to thematic analysis. It began with digm, which is based on the notion that social real- transcription and translation of the recorded inter­views ity is created and sustained through the subjective in verbatim. This was undertaken by the researcher experience of people (Morgan, 1980). The quali- who could read and write in Twi. This was followed by tative approach was deemed appropriate because generation of initial codes, search for themes, review it enables researchers to obtaining a more realis- of themes, defining and naming themes, before the tic feel of the world that cannot be achieved with write up and discussion of findings. numerical data and statistical analysis normally used in quantitative research. This study sought the Findings perceptions and lived experiences of community members with regard to their participation in eco­ Themes that emerged from the analysis of data tourism in the community. indicate that though the Mesomagor community had The semistructured interview guide was devel- derived a modicum of benefits from the CBE proj- oped based on the available literature on community ect, there are some challenges to their realization participation in ecotourism as well as benefits and of the full benefits of their participation in tourism. challenges of community participation in ecotour- Most respondents were also of the view that the CBE ism. To ensure the validity of the research design, project had generated more environmental benefits a pretest of the instrument was undertaken on in terms of conservation as compared to the socio- September 22, 2016 in Abrafo Odumase, another economic benefits to the community. The benefits are community on the southwestern corridor of the education, enhancement of the image of the commu- KNP and the main entrance to the park. The pretest nity, business opportunities, infrastructural develop- involved in-depth interviews with three key infor- ment, and conservation of the forest. The challenges mants, namely the Chief, assemblyman, and a com- are apathy, lack of employment opportunities, lack munity elder. The actual fieldwork was undertaken of benefits-sharing opportunities, lack of capacity to in Mesomagor, employing purposive sampling. A manage the CBE project, deprivation of access to for- total of 15 key informants were interviewed. These est products, and destruction of crops by elephants. represented the broad spectrum of stakeholders in These are discussed in detail below. the CBE project in the community. They included the chief of the community, village elders, clan Education heads, members of the tourism development com- mittee, farmers, a community , leader of The main benefits of CBE to the community was the Bamboo Orchestra, as well as officials of Ghana in the area of education. They particularly referred 90 MENSAH to the support that the school in their community tourism, many people would not have heard about had received as a result of tourism. They indicated Mesomagor because it is a remote village. “For that through tourism the community was able to now, Mesomagor is on the world map. People know secure support from World Vision, an NGO which Mesomagor and they go straight to Mesomagor. led to the construction of six classroom blocks for They receive volunteers who go there directly and the community school. Also as a result of tourism, work with them” (Top official, GHCT). “Because some community members had received training. of tourism Mesomagor is now recognized. There At the inception of the project, a number of training are over 400 communities around the park, many programs were rolled out for community members of which are bigger than Mesomagor yet it is as indicated by a top official of GHCT: more recognized due to the treehouse and Bamboo Orchestra” (Officer, Wildlife Division). We had to do a whole package of training for everyone in the community because everyone was going to be part of it. We had the chiefs, sellers, Business Opportunities cooks, those who will be trained as tour guides etc. So, a whole lot of training programmes were put Moreover, tourism had brought business oppor- in place so that those who could not speak English tunities to the community. The presence of tourists at the time were taught how to speak basic English in the community has provided a ready market for so that they will be able to communicate. petty traders, food vendors, craftsmen, and opera- The training programs were geared towards build- tors of tourist accommodation facilities. This had ing capacity among community members so that also helped to diversify the local economy, which they could cater for the tourists who visited the used to be solely agrarian. The presence of tourists community and eventually take full control over in the community provided an opportunity for some the management of the project. Some community women to engage in petty trading as well as cater- members had also acquired knowledge through ing for the dietary needs of the tourists. There was their interactions and relationships with tourists. a women’s group that was organized and trained to One of the village elders recounted how a lady prepare quality foods for tourists who stayed in the who visited the community sponsored a visit by community. This afforded the women the opportu- some selected community members to Tafi Atome, nity to earn some additional income: a community that had made significant strides in When tourists come they buy drinks, bread and CBE. According to him, the lady wanted to afford pure water, biscuits, whatever is sold that they like, them the opportunity to learn first hand some good they go to town and buy. We also have a women practices in CBE so that when they returned to group who prepare food for the tourists who spend their community, they could put them into prac- the night. The women do not buy all the items they tice. Upon their return from Tafi Atome, they also use for cooking from Nyankumasi but also from this community. So, it’s not only the authorities imparted the knowledge they had acquired to their that benefit from them but also the people in the people. A community tour guide also indicated that community. (Leader of Bamboo Orchestra) he had gained a lot of knowledge from the tourists who visited the community even though he had very little formal education. Infrastructural Development One area that the community had seen some tangible improvement since the advent of tourism Enhancement of the Image of the Community was infrastructure. A school, teachers’ accommo- Another benefit of tourism to the community was dation block, roads, a guest house, and a health the enhancement of the image of the community. post among others had been constructed. The per- Officials of GHCT and Wildlife Division as well sonal contributions of some philanthropic tourists, as some community members were of the opinion support from NGOs, as well as contribution of a that tourism had projected the image of Mesomagor percentage of proceeds from the Bamboo Orches- and placed the community in the limelight. But for tra had facilitated this. By the arrangements put BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ECOTOURISM 91 in place by CI, the Bamboo Orchestra contributes say the concessions given to timber contractors 10% of earnings from performances while 2.5% of to cut down the trees and export them has ceased. entrance fees is given to the community towards Now no one goes into the forest to cut down trees” community development projects. The leader of the (Farmer). The conservation of the forest, accord- Bamboo Orchestra recounted how the 10% contri- ing to officials of GHCT and the Wildlife Divi- bution by his organization was used to pay artisans sion, has invariably resulted in improved weather who were contracted to build a teachers’ accommo- conditions, which is necessary for improved crop dation block in the community. Also, the District yield. The area experiences enough rainfall neces- Assembly conscious of the fact that Mesomagor sary for farming activities due to the conservation is an important tourist destination in the district of the forest. always ensures that the roads were in good shape for tourists who travel to the community: Apathy

When the tourists come we talk to them about One of the major challenges to community par- our problems and what we need so that they can ticipation in ecotourism development in Mesoma- help us. I remember when the chips zone (health gor is apathy due to the fact that the anticipated post) was being constructed, the council asked benefits by community members have not been us to look for a land. We had to pay for the land. The government paid part of the cost of the land achieved to a large extent. Though the community but we could not pay the rest. I remember a white as a whole had derived some modest socioeconomic man who was a tourist came here and we spoke to benefits, the contention was that this had not trick- him about it. He agreed to help pay the remaining led down to the individual and household levels. amount which was GH¢1,500. (Clan Head) Some of the community members interviewed put it bluntly that tourism had not been beneficial to the community. This a top official of GHCT attrib- Conservation of Forest uted to high expectations from the KNP: “From the One major benefit of CBE was conservation of beginning I talked about high expectations but the the forest. According to a 60-year-old village elder, point is that you are talking about over 400 com- since 1988 when the Wildlife Division came to their munities around the park, there is a limit to the village to inform them that the government had number of people we can employ.” taken over the forest and so nobody should enter It appeared the expectations of the people were the forest for hunting, no member of the commu- hyped in terms of the benefits to be derived from nity has entered the forest. This was corroborated the project. The high expectations were fueled by by a Clan head: promises of improved livelihoods and benefits sharing, especially at the inception of the project. When you go to the wildlife office, there is no Therefore, when the anticipated benefits were not record that shows that any member of this com- forthcoming, many community members became munity has been caught in the forest. It is rather apathetic towards tourism development. In an the people who live outside this community who sneak into the forest and are caught. (Village elder) attempt to reignite community interest in the eco- tourism project, more promises were made as With the creation of the KNP, there was a total recounted by a clan head: ban on hunting and harvesting of other forest prod- About a month ago, the boss of wildlife at Abrafo ucts such as cane, rattan, and bamboo from which came here. According to him, he had not been some community members eked out a living. The around for some time but he realized that there result is that both the flora and fauna have largely were some benefits the community had to enjoy remained intact. Prior to the establishment of KNP, from Kakum National Park but he had seen that the forest was logged and some timber merchants the community had been deprived of that benefit. He had also seen that the tree platform needed to pitched their camp at Mesomagor. However, since be repaired so he was pleading with us to con- 1994 the commercial logging has ceased. “In tinue to repair it and he would ensure that what- terms of the conservation of the forest, I would ever benefit the community is supposed to enjoy 92 MENSAH

is made available to us. So, we are waiting and development had not provided enough employment anticipating he will come back. He was the one opportunities to community members. Though, who made it known to us that we were supposed some modicum of employment had been provided to get those benefits. to some community members in the areas of tour guiding, forest guarding, and cultural performances Lack of Benefits-Sharing Opportunities through the Bamboo Orchestra. However, the real- ity on the ground was that an insignificant num- The community has been deprived of a fair share ber of community members were either fully or of tourism revenue from both the KNP and the tree- partially employed by the tourism industry. Only house for developmental projects. Community lead- one tour guide was still practicing at the time of ers insisted that the community had not received the study. There was only one forest guard from the any share of revenue from the KNP. Also, under the community who had been engaged by the Wildlife arrangements with CI, a percentage of the entrance Division. The highest number of people who were fees paid by tourists who visited the community was employed albeit partially by the tourism industry supposed to be given to the community for develop- were performers in the Bamboo Orchestra; a total of mental projects, but this had ceased for some time. 15 performers. Additionally, GHCT had employed “When the tourists come, there is an entrance fee the services of one man from the community at they pay but for over six years, we have not received their ICT center in Abrafo Odumase: anything from the tour guides” (Village elder). With regards to the community’s share of revenue At GHCT for instance, the guy at our ICT centre from the KNP, the cabinet of Ghana had approved a at Abrafo is from Mesomagor and the members formula for revenue sharing in 2006. The formula of the Bamboo orchestra indirectly because the was that 10% of revenue from the park should go to Orchestra can go anywhere and perform. In all central government, 20% to district assemblies, 20% these, the women we train are given some kind of employment. (Top official, GHCT) to traditional authorities and communities, while the remaining 50% goes into a Maintenance Fund for the management of the park. However, this has not This is rather ironic because one of advantages of been implemented because there was no legal instru- community participation in tourism is job creation. ment backing this decision. The result is that revenue However, the people interviewed bemoaned the lack from the park is not shared with the communities. of employment opportunities in the tourism indus- Instead, GHCT takes 45% while government takes try. “Since 1988 when tourism was introduced here, 55%. It is GHCT’s share of the revenue that is used no member of this community has been employed. for maintenance of the park and support of projects It was last year that one boy was employed. After in the communities including that of Mesomagor. training, they are not even selected to be employed” Another source of revenue to park-fringe com- (Clan head). munities is royalties. Though royalties had not been The people were at risk of losing even the limited paid to any of the over 400 communities fringing jobs that tourism offered due to lack of prospects. the park, it was not likely Mesomagor will receive Some members of the community had to quit their any royalty if park authorities start paying because jobs in the tourism industry due to poor prospects. the people are not landowners but settler farmers. Some members of the Bamboo Orchestra had left The land does not belong to them so they are not the group in the past and relocated from the com- entitled to royalties. In fact, they rather pay royal- munity in search of greener pastures. Initially, four ties to the traditional authority at Abease who are tour guides were trained for the treehouse project the owners of the land. but only one remained at the time of the study because it was not rewarding as indicated by the community tour guide: Limited Employment Opportunities Four tour guides were trained but now I am the Evidence on the ground also pointed to the only one left. If a tourist goes to spend the night fact that community participation in ecotourism there, he or she is charged GH¢30. This money BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ECOTOURISM 93

has to be shared among the reception manager, the and use some forest products. Like all forest-fringe tour guide, the community, wildlife as well as part communities, the people of Mesomagor had become for maintenance. After this, the tour guide needs dependent on the forest for their sustenance. With a battery for his torchlight. The tour guide is left with almost nothing. So they quit when the tour- the establishment of the national park, it became ists stopped coming and I am the only one left. illegal to exploit the forest products. However, tourism had not provided the alternative liveli- hoods that were promised. One major loss to the Lack of Capacity to Manage CBE Project people was building materials such as bamboo and There is also the lack of capacity within the com- cane, which they obtained from the forest: munity to manage the CBE project. In 2010, GHCT handed over the management of tourism in the com- We used to go into the forest to pick some herbs and cane to weave baskets and sell. We also used munity to the community and ceased to be directly to hunt some animals and sell them for money but involved in the day to day operations of tourism. when the government came to take over the forest, Though a bold attempt to empower the community, we accepted and gave it to them because it may it rather resulted in a decline in tourism activities: help my children in the future. Because the forest has been taken, we do not have coconut branches At the time we said they had come of age so why to roof our buildings. (Village elder) don’t they manage the thing themselves. “A mem- ber of the community” was able to complete a course at the Institute of Adult Education. When Destruction of Crops by Elephants he completed we knew that he will be able to man- age it. (Top official, GHCT). The problem of marauding elephants straying into and destroying the farms of community mem- We had a tourism development committee but a bers is a long-standing problem that predates the man once said that if something comes from the establishment of the KNP but it had grown from city into the village, it is not able to last, it gets bad to worse. Respondents indicated that though destroyed. Because we did not go to school, it is they report such incidents to thse Wildlife Division, very difficult for us to understand certain things. At the time CI was present here, they came here nothing is done about it. Also, they had not received every week to train us so the committee was in any form of compensation for their losses: existence. When CI left, the market collapsed. (Leader of Bamboo orchestra) Another issue is that there is a season that elephants come into our farms and destroy everything. We It is apparent that the transition from CI through report to the wildlife authorities but we do not get GHCT to the local community was not smooth. The any kind of compensation from them. We have not received any kind of compensation since the park community was used to the project being managed was created. (Farmer) by external agencies such as CI and the Wildlife Division. It appeared they were ill equipped to However, an official of the Wildlife Division undertake the marketing, operations, monitoring, indicated that they had initiated steps to address the and evaluation of the project. It also appeared they problem and this was corroborated by a top official had not understudied these NGOs and generally of GHCT and some community members. Through lacked the capacity to manage the project on their the Collaborative Resource Management Unit of own. The resultant effect was the decline in tour- the Wildlife Division, farmers had been trained on ism activities and tourist arrivals in the community how to ward off the elephants using clothes smeared compelling some tour guides and other community with a mixture of grease and spices as a fence members to lose interest in the project. around their farms. However, community members were of the view that such interventions were not successful. They also appeared disappointed with Deprivation of Access to Forest Products the fact that each time they reported incidents of Moreover, almost all the community members elephant raids on their farms to the Wildlife offi- interviewed decried the lost opportunity to harvest cers, they only accompanied them to the farms to 94 MENSAH inspect the damage and write reports but no action control of tourism development in the community. was taken thereafter: But it turned out that this move rather resulted in a decline in the fortunes of the project. Though spon- Wildlife brought some group from Canada and taneous participation is the most ideal form of par- Brazil from 2000 to 2002. They were known as ticipation, surrendering total control of a tourism Elephant Control… they put measures in place to prevent the animals from coming outside. They project to a rural community without building suffi- brought some ideas; mixed grease, pepper and cient capacity and instituting appropriate structures apply the mixture on an old cloth and erect pil- and systems is a recipe for failure. lars with sticks around the farm, then tie the cloth Also, results of this study indicate that commu- with the mixture all around the farm. So that when nity participation in ecotourism at Mesomagor has the elephants come around and they smell the pep- per, they will run away. We tried it but it didn’t yielded more conservation benefits than economic work the elephants still came to destroy our farms. benefits to the host community. The success at con- (Leader Bamboo orchestra) serving one of the very few remaining vestiges of the tropical moist semideciduous rainforest is a sig- nificant achievement. However, conservation of the Discussion and Conclusion forest had been achieved at a cost to the communi- Undeniably, community participation in ecotour­ ties fringing the park including Mesomagor. Among ism development has offered some modicum of the costs are loss of livelihoods and destruction of socioeconomic benefits largely in the area of infra- farms by elephants. When the benefits are weighed structural development to the Mesomagor commu- against the costs, it appears the community is worse nity. Tourism in the community had brought about off, as suggested by Wells (1996), that communities infrastructural development in the area of roads, could be worse off with CPEPs in a situation where classrooms, and a health facility. However, with they suffer crop, livestock, and property damage the handing over of the project entirely to the com- while deriving little benefit from park activities. munity, the modest economic gains had declined The lack of economic opportunities could erode to a very low level. The jobs, income, and revenue the gains made in the area of conservation as com- that were promised to the people at the inception of munity members could be compelled to return to the project had largely remained unfulfilled. This their traditional occupations including hunting and reinforces the concerns of Goodwin and Santilli logging in order to eke out a living. Brechin, West, (2009) and Stronza and Godillo (2008) that com- Harmon, and Kutay (1991) argued that “Protected munity participation in ecotourism may not deliver areas will not survive for long whenever local peo- the supposed economic benefits. The lack of eco- ple remain impoverished and are denied access to nomic benefits had resulted in community members needed resources inside” (p. 26). Brechin et al.’s becoming apathetic towards tourism development. argument is even more relevant in a situation where The handing over of the project to the commu- the protected areas cannot be completely protected nity was a conscious attempt by GHCT to foster by park authorities as in the case of the KNP. The greater participation by the community in tourism sheer number of communities and people living on development. It could be seen as a migration from the fringes of the park makes it virtually impossible Tosun’s (2000) induced participation to spontane- for trained forest guards of the Forestry Commis- ous participation. At the start of the project, the sion to keep surveillance of the entire area. people were consulted and allowed to express their Cole (2006), among other things, pointed to lack opinions and concerns; however, it was the plans of ownership, skills, and knowledge as challenges and decisions of more powerful external agencies to CBE and this has been evidenced by this study. like CI and Wildlife Division that mattered the Although the project had been handed over to the most and they ultimately dictated what was done. community to manage, they did not see themselves Then in 2010, GHCT haven inherited the project as owners of the project. Apparently, the project from CI and decided to hand the project over to was the brainchild of CI. The conceptualization the community. A tourism development committee and planning of the project was done without the made up of community members were to take full active involvement of the community members. BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ECOTOURISM 95

Thus, the practice of external agencies developing the pressing needs of each community through a projects for communities without the involvement local consultative process and assist these com- of community members is a recipe for the failure of munities with part of the revenues in meeting their such projects. It is also evident that the local people most pressing needs. This should be done in suc- lacked the skills and knowledge needed to success- cession and based on the characteristics of the com- fully manage the project. This explains why, when munities such as population, size, and nearness to CI handed over the project to them, tourism activi- the park. Experiences around the world, in places ties declined in the community. As one respondent like Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania, suggest pointed out, when CI was present, they were in the that when it comes to revenue sharing, handouts are community almost every week to train them and rarely given out to individual community members, the tourism development committee was vibrant, instead revenues are invested in social infrastruc- but when they left, the tourism business declined. ture for the benefit of all. From the study, employment opportunities from tourism were very minimal. The reality of the situ- Recommendations ation is that the KNP cannot employ the bulk of The absence of a revenue-sharing regime between community members. The lack of employment government and park-fringe communities needs opportunities was compounded by the fact that to be urgently addressed. Revenue generated from tourism activities were at a lowest ebb in the com- the park was not shared between KNP authorities munity. Therefore, there is the need to provide more and the Mesomagor community, although the eco­ employment opportunities for community mem- tourism project in the community provided some bers. One way of doing this is through the promo- revenue that was used to provide basic infrastructure tion of agrotourism because almost all community in the community. Ironically, economic empower- members were farmers. Another way is through ment of the park-fringe communities is normally training in alternative livelihood activities. Skills judged by the trickle-down effect of park revenue training programs in animal rearing, crafts mak- and incomes on fringe communities. Communities ing, and honey production should be introduced to like Mesomagor should be made direct beneficiaries equip community members to take advantage of the of park revenue through transparent and equitable market offered by tourism. revenue-sharing regimes. Tourism revenue sharing It is further suggested that in the short term (TRS) programs promote tourism development and people who had their crops damaged by stray ensure that local communities enjoy tangible ben- animals from the park should be compensated so efits from the industry while participating in wild- long as they did not encroach on the forest or the life conservation (Archabald & Naughton-Treves, buffer zone. Through the Forestry Commission 2001). However, the issue of revenue sharing is a and the Ministry of Forestry, Lands, and Natural tricky one especially within the Kakum Conserva- Resources, KNP should propose to government tion Area in view of the numerous communities payment of compensation to community members surrounding the park coupled with the local geo- for crop damage by stray elephants. This has been political dynamics. This presents a dilemma as to successful implemented in Eastern and Southern how revenue could be shared fairly and the formula Africa, and it resulted in payment of compensation to use. The 2006 cabinet approved revenue-sharing in park-fringe communities for wildlife attacks on formula has not been implemented due to a lack of humans and damage to crops (Pathak & Kothari, legislative instrument and the blanket nature of the 2003). In the absence of such payments, com- proposition. Allocation of percentages of revenue munity members will continue to regard the KNP to different stakeholders without any law backing it authorities as taking them for granted and that could be problematic. What is needed is a law and could result in open confrontations and attacks on policy on revenue sharing. staff and management of the park. However, park It is practically impossible for the over 450 com- authorities should seek a long-term solution to this munities to have a significant share of the revenue problem through research and collaboration with every year. The best approach would be to identify international experts. 96 MENSAH

Finally, it is obvious that entrusting the manage- Conservation Area. Part 2: Technical report. Elephant ment of tourism in the community in the hands Biology and Management Project, Africa Program. of the local people was premature because they Washington, DC: Conservation International. Bhanoo, S. (2015). Community participation in conserva- lacked the capacity and the structures for market- tion of Great Himalayan National Park. Chennai, India: ing and managing the project. It is recommended Notion Press. that GHCT should train and mentor some of the Blaikie, P. (2006). Is small really beautiful? Community- community members to play various roles such as based natural resource management in Malawi and marketing, operations, monitoring, and evaluation. Botswana. World Development, 34(11), 1942–1957. Boafo, Y., Dubiure, U. F., Danquah, E. K., Manford, M., Also, the Tourism Development Committee should Nandjui, A., Hema, E. M., & Bailey, B. (2004). Long- be reconstituted and strengthened by including rep- term management of crop raiding by elephants around resentatives from the Wildlife Division and GHCT. Kakum Conservation Area in southern Ghana. Pachy- The reception manager should be trained in record derm, 37, 68–72. keeping on tourists who visit the community. This Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), will help to monitor tourist arrivals and ensure that 77–101. the community gets its accurate share of revenue Brechin, S. R., West, P. C., Harmon, D., & Kutay, K. (1991). generated from tourism. Resident peoples and protected areas: A framework for inquiry. In P. West & S. Brechin (Eds.), Resident people and national parks: Social dilemmas and strategies in References international conservation. Tucson, AZ: The University Abane, A. M., Awusabo-Asare, K., & Kissi, A. K. (1999). of Arizona Press. In whose interest? Individual and societal needs in the Bretty, E. A. (2003). Participation and accountability in creation of forest reserves: The case of Kakum in Ghana. development management. The Journal of Development Bulletin of the Ghana Geographical Association, 21, Studies, 40(2), 1–29. 21–30. Brody, S. D. (2003). Measuring the effects of stakeholder par- Agyare, A. (1995). The socio-economic perspective of ticipation on the quality of local plans based on the prin- Kakum National Park. Forest Resource Management ciples of collaborative ecosystems management. Journal Programme, IUCN Project 9786. Accra: Ghana Wildlife of Planning and Education Research, 22, 407–419. Division. Byrd, E. T., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. (2009). Stake- Akyeampong, O. A. (2011). Pro-poor tourism: Residents’ holder perceptions of tourism impact in eastern North expectations, experiences and perceptions in the Kakum Carolina. Tourism Management, 30, 693–703. National Park Area of Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Campbell, L. M. (2002). Conservation narratives and the Tourism, 19(2), 197–213. “received wisdom” of ecotourism: Case studies from Appiah-Opoku, S. (2011). Using protected areas as a tool for Costa Rica. International Journal of Sustainable Devel- biodiversity conservation and ecotourism: A case study opment, 5(3), 300–325. of Kakum National Park in Ghana. Society and Natural Clarke, V. (2002). Differing understanding of “tourism Resources, 24(5), 500–510. and communities” within South Africa’s tourism policy Archabald, K., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2001). ­Tourism framework. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, School of ­revenue-sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: Leisure and Food Management, Sheffield Hallam Uni- Early efforts to identify and reward local communities. versity, Sheffield, UK. Environmental Conservation, 28(2), 135–149. Cobbinah, P. B. (2015). Local attitudes towards natural Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. resources management in rural Ghana. Management of Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 26(3), 216–224. 423–436. Ashley, C., Roe, D., & Goodwin, H. (2001). Pro-poor Cobbinah, P. B., Black, R., & Thwaites, R. (2015). Eco­ tourism strategies: Making tourism work for the poor. tourism implementation in the Kakum Conservation London: Overseas Development Institute, Pro-poor tour- Area, Ghana: Administrative framework and local com- ism Report No 1. munity experiences. Journal of Ecotourism, 14(2–3), Asker, S., Boronyak, L., Carrard, N., & Paddon, M. (2010). 223–242. Effective community based tourism: A best practice man- Cole, S. (2006). , community participation ual. Asia Pacific economic cooperation (APEC) tourism and empowerment. In M. K. Smith & M. Robson (Eds.), working group. Gold coast, Australia: Sustainable Tour- Cultural tourism in a changing world: Politics participa- ism Cooperative Research Centre. tion and (re)presentation. Cleveland, UK: Channel View Barnes, R. F. W., Boafo, Y., Nandjui, A., Farouk, U. D., Publications. Hema, E. M., Danquah, E., & Manford, M. (2003). An de Sherbinin, A. (2008). Is poverty more acute near parks? overview of crop raiding by elephants around the Kakum An assessment of infant mortality rates around protected BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF ECOTOURISM 97

areas in developing countries. The International Journal (Eds.), Indigenous tourism: The commodification and of Conservation, 42(1), 26–35. management of culture (pp. 87–109). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Dei, L. A. (2000). Community participation in tourism in Mensah, I. (2016). Effects of socio-demographic character- Africa. In P. Dieke (Ed.), Political economy of tourism in istics and perceived benefits of tourism on community Africa (pp. 6–18). New York: Cognizant Publishers. participation in tourism in the Mesomagor Area of the Dixey, L. (2005). Inventory analysis of community based Kakum National Park, Ghana. Athens Journal of Tour- tourism in Zambia. USAID Production, Finance and ism, 3(3), 211–230. Technology (PROFIT) Program, Lusaka, Zambia. Mensah, I., & Adofo, E. (2013). Community participation in Epler Wood, M., & Jones, H. (2008). Community-based ecotourism: The case of Bobiri Forest Reserve and But- tourism enterprise in Latin America. Burlington, VT: terfly Sanctuary in Ashanti Region of Ghana. American EplerWood International. Journal of Tourism Management, 2(A), 34–42. Ghana Wildlife Division. (1994). Management plan for Mitchell, J, & Muckosy, P. (2008). A misguided quest: . Accra, Ghana: Author. Community-based tourism in Latin America. London: Gilmour, D. A. (1995). Collaborative management of forests Overseas Development Institute. for conservation and development. issues in forests con- Mogaka, H., Simons, G., Turpie, J., Emerton, L., & Karanja, servation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. F. (2001). Economic aspects of community involvement in Goodwin, H. (2009). Reflections on 10 years of pro-poor sustainable forest management in Eastern and Southern tourism. Journal of Policy Research on Tourism, Leisure Africa (No. 8). IUCN-The World Conservation Union, and Events, 1(1), 90–94. Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi, Africa. Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tour- Monney, K. A., Dakwa, K. B., & Wiafe, E. D. (2010). Assess- ism: A success? ICRT Occasional Paper 11. Retrieved from ment of crop raiding situation by elephants (Loxodonta http://www.haroldgoodwin.info/uploads/CBTaSuccess​ africana cyclotis) in farms around Kakum conservation Pubpdf.pdf area, Ghana. International Journal of Biodiversity and Gray, N. (2003). Unpacking the baggage of ecotourism: Nature, Conservation, 2(9), 243–249. science, and local participation. Great Lakes Geographer­ , Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solv- 9(2), 113–123. ing in organization communication. Administrative Sci- Hardy, A., Beeton, R., & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable ence Quarterly, 25, 608–621. tourism: An overview of the concept and its position in Moscardo, G. (Ed.). (2008). Building community capac- relation to conceptualizations of tourism. Journal of Sus- ity for tourism development. Wallingford, UK: CAB tainable Tourism, 10(6), 475–496. International. Jones, B., & Murphree, M. (2001). The evolution of policy Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2009). Tourism and sustainabil- on community conservation in Namibia and Zimbabwe. ity: Development and new tourism in third world (3rd In D. Hulme & M. Murphree (Eds.), African wildlife & ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. livelihoods: The promise and performance of community Nanang, D. M., & Owusu, E. H. (2010). Estimating the conservation (pp. 38–58). Oxford, UK: James Currey. economic value of recreation at the Kakum National Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use Park, Ghana. Retrieved from http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh/ of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology handle/123456789/1775 and Evolution, 19(5), 232–237. Nelson, F. (2004). The evolution and impacts of community- Koster, R. (2007). An evaluation of community-based tour- based ecotourism in Northern Tanzania. London: Inter- ism development: How theory intersects with practice. national Institute for Environment and Development, Prairie Perspectives, 10(1), 67–88. Issue Paper 131. Kruger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: Pathak, N., & Kothari, A. (2003). Community-conserved bio- Panacea or Pandora’s Box? Biodiversity and Conserva- diversity areas: Lessons from South Asia. In D. Harmon tion, 14, 579–600. & A. D. Putney (Eds.), The full value of parks: From eco- Kull, C. A. (2002). Empowering pyromaniacs in ­Madagascar: nomics to the intangible (pp. 211–226). Lanham, MD: Ideology and legitimacy in community-based natural Rowman & Littlefield. resource management. Development and Change, 33(1), Pretty, J. N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J., & Scoones, L. (1995). 57–78. Participatory learning and action. London: International Li, W. (2006). Community decision-making participation in Institute for Environment and Development. development. Tourism Management, 33(1), 132–143. Salazar, N. B. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tour- Issues, threats and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable ism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of Tourism, 20(1), 9–22. their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal Scherl, L. M., & Edwards, S. (2007). Tourism, indigenous of , 15(6), 628–644. and local communities and protected areas in develop- Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005). Community-based tourism and the ing nations. In R. Bushell & P. F. J. Eagles (Eds.), Tour- marginalised communities in Botswana: The case of ism and protected areas: Benefits beyond boundaries Basarwa in the Okavango Delta. In C. Ryan & M. Aicken (pp. 71–88). Wallingford, UK: CAB International. 98 MENSAH

Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for development: Empower- Waithaka, J. (2002). The role of community wildlife-based ing communities. Harlow, UK: Pearson. enterprises in reducing human vulnerability and environ- Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, mental degradation: The case of II Ngwesi ecotourism proj- benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, ect, Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: African Conservation Center. Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management, 31(1), Walpole, M., & Goodwin, H. (2001). Local attitudes towards 136–146. conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Spenceley, A., & Snyman, S. (2012). High-end ecotourism’s Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 28,160–166. role in assisting rural communities in reaching the millen- Wells, M. P. (1996). The social role of protected areas in nium development goals. In K. S. Bricker, R. Black, & the new South Africa. Environmental Conservation, 23, S. Cottrell (Eds.), Sustainable tourism and the millennium 322–331. development goals: Effecting positive change (pp. 89–106). West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Stone, L. S., & Stone, T. M. (2011). Community-based tour- Review of Anthropology, 35, 251–277. ism enterprises: Challenges and prospects for community Wijesundara, C. N. R., & Wimalaratana, R. W. (2016). Com- participation; Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Botswana. munity participation in tourism benefits sharing Schemes Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 97–114. of Sri Lanka: A case study of Arugam Bay Destination. Stronza, A. (2001). Anthropology of tourism: Forging new Proceedings of ISER 26th International Conference, ground for ecotourism and other alternatives. Annual March 14th, Bangkok, Thailand. Review of Anthropology, 30, 261–283. Wildlife Division of Forestry Commission. (2004). A brief- Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for ing document on collaborative resource management in conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(3), 210–230. Ghana. Retrieved from https://www.fcghana.org/assets/ Stronza, A., & Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of eco- file/Publications/Wildlife%20Issues/collab_resource_ tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 448–468. mgt_briefing.pdf Stronza, A., & Pêgas, F. (2008). Ecotourism and conserva- World Wildlife Fund. (2001). Guidelines for community-based tion: Two cases from Brazil and Peru. Human Dimen- ecotourism development. Retrieved from http://www. sions of Wildlife, 13(4), 263–279. widecast.org/Resources/Docs/WWF_2001_Community_ Taylor, J., Yunez-Naude, A., & Ardila, S. (2003). The eco- Based_Ecotourism_Develop.pdf nomics of ecotourism: A Galapagos Islands economy- Wunder, S. (2000). Ecotourism and economic incentives: An wide perspective. Economic Development and Cultural empirical approach. Ecological Economics, 32, 456–479. Change, 13, 978–997. Zapata, M. J., Hall, C. M., Lindo, P., & Vanderschaeghe, Taylor, R. (2009). Community based natural resource man- M. (2011). Can community-based tourism contribute agement in Zimbabwe: The experience of CAMPFIRE. to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Biodiversity Conservation, 18(10), 2563–2583. Nicaragua. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(8), 725–749. Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the Zhang, J., Inbakaran, R., & Jackson, M. (2006). Understand- tourism development process in developing countries. ing community attitudes towards tourism and host-guest Tourism Management, 21, 613–633. interaction in the urban-rural border region. Tourism Twerefou, D. K., & Ababio, D. K. A. (2012). An economic Geographies, 8(2), 182–204. valuation of the Kakum National Park: An individual Zhao, W., & Ritchie, J. B. (2007). Tourism and poverty travel cost approach. African Journal of Environmental alleviation: An integrative research framework. Current Science and Technology, 6(4), 199–207. Issues in Tourism, 10(2), 119–143.