Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

Local participation in community-based ecotourism

development: A case study of from Shewula, north­

eastern Swaziland

Cathy Segar

A research paper submitted to the Department ofEnvironmental and Geographical Science, University ofCape Town, in partial

fulfillment ofthe requirements for the Master ofPhilosophy degree.

August 1999

Local participation in community-based ecotourism

development: A case study of from Shewula, north­

eastern Swaziland

Cathy Segar

research paper subntitted to the Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University (?l Cape Town, in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the Alaster of Philosophy degree.

August 1999

The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non-commercial research purposes only.

Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author.

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

Table of Contents

Abstract......................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2

Location ofthe study area and description ofthe local context ................................ 4

Background to the proposed development and consequent research ........................ 4

Research Methodology ............................................................................................... 8

Community-based ecotourism: a theoretical review ................................................ 9

Shewula: a community-based ecotourism development? ........................................ 11

Local participation in community-based ecotourism ............................................. 12

Extent oflocal participation in Shewula.................................................................. 13

Factors affecting local participation in ecotourism development.......................... 13

Local support for ecotourism development .............................................................. 14

Local-level understanding about tourism ................................................................ 18

Opportunities for enhancing local participation ..................................................... 20

Creating grass-roots awareness and skills training ................................................ 21

Institution building ............................................... .................................................... 22

Partnership-building and higher-level commitment to local participation ............. 23

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 25

Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 27

List of Figures

Map 1: Properties included in the Lubombo Conservancy

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the people of Shewula, for their hospitality and for their

enthusiasm in participating in this study. Without them, this paper would not have

been possible. I would also like to thank Darryll Kilian, for his supervision of this

paper. Financial support for the research was provided by the Centre for Scientific

Development, the University of Cape Town and the Peace Parks Foundation, and is

gratefully acknowledged.

Table of Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2

Location of the study area and description of the local context ................................ 4

Background to the proposed development and consequent research ........................ 4

Research Methodology ............................................................................................... 8

Community-based ecotourism: a theoretical review ................................................ 9

Shewula: a community-based ecotourism development? ........................................ 11

Local participation in community-based ecotourism ............................................. 12

Extent of local participation in Shewula ..................................................... ............. 13

Factors affecting local participation in ecotourism development .......................... 13

Local supportfor ecotourism development .............................................................. 14

Local-level understanding about tourism ................................................................ 18

Opportunities for enhancing local participation ..................................................... 20

Creating grass-roots awareness and skills training ................................................ 21

Institution building ...................................................... ............................................. 22

Partnership-building and higher-level commitment to local participation ............. 23

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 25

Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 27

List of Figures

Map 1: Properties included in the Lubombo Conservancy

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the people of Shewula, for their hospitality and for their

enthusiasm in participating in this study. Without them, this paper would not have

been possible. I would also like to thank Darryll Kilian, for his supervision of this

paper. Financial support for the research was provided by the Centre for Scientific

Development, the University of Cape Town and the Peace Parks Foundation, and is

gratefully acknowledged.

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

2

Local participation in community-based ecotourism development: A case study of

from Shewula, north-eastern Swaziland

Segar, C.

Abstract

Ecotourism is often endorsed as an ideal tool sustainable development mat can successfully link the dual goals of nature conservation and rural development. However, critics have highlighted that the negative impacts of ecotourism on local communities can undermine the value ofecotourism for community development. The participation of local communities in planning and implementing, ecotourism development has, therefore, been recommended. This paper addresses some of the problems facing a local community that has the opportunity to develop its own ecotourism venture. It focuses on the difficulties that have been encountered in securing the necessary local participation in planning for a proposed tourism development. These problems include a lack of local level awareness about the proposed development, lack of support for the development and lack of capacity to plan a marketable, environmentally sustainable tourism product. Some of the recommended actions for eliciting greater local participation and equipping local people to plan for and accommodate tourism are presented. The application of these to the case study reveals a need for sensitivity to local conditions on the part of

agents ofchange.

Introduction

Ecotourism has often been heralded as a strategy for sustainable development

(Whelan, 1991; Mendelsohn, 1994; Barkin, 1996; Wallace, 1996). has been

written about the potential for ecotourism to integrate the goals of biodiversity

conservation and environmental protection with the demands of community

development in rural areas (Ashley & Garland 1994; Theron, 1995). In particular,

significant attention been given to role which ecotourism can play in securing

socio-economic upliftment of local populations, restoring local pride in indigenous

cultural heritage, and offering communities economic incentives to protect natural

resources (Brandon, 1993; Colvin, 1994; Urquhart, 1995).

However, many authors have also cautioned against uncritical advocation of

ecotourism as a solution to the development dilemma of sustaining resources

improving livelihoods (Cater, 1994; Khan, 1996; Goodwin, 1996; Gaisford, 1997).

2

Local participation in comnlunity-based ecotourism development: A case study of

from Shewula, north-eastern Swaziland

Segar, C.

Abstract

Ecotourism is often endorsed as an ideal tool development that can successjiLUy link the dual goals of nature and rural development. t-ff)1AW'"01', critics have highlighted that impacts ecotourism on local communities can undermine the value cornmunity development. The participation of local comrnunities in planning implernenting, ecotourism development has, therejrJre, been addresses some of the problems facing a local communi~y that opportunity to develop its own ecotourism venture. It focuses on the difficulties been encountered in securing the necessary local participation in planning fi:;r a proposed tourism developm.ent. These problems include a lack awareness about the proposed development, lack of support for the development and lack of capacity to plan a marketable, environmental(y sustainable tourism product. Some of the

actions for eliciting greater local participation and equipping local to plan fbr and accommodate tourism are presented. The application of these case study reveals a need for sensitiviZY to local conditions on the part of

of change.

Introduction

Ecotourism has often been heralded as a strategy sustainable development

(Whelan, 1991; Mendelsohn, 1994; Barkin, 1996; Wallace, 1996). Much has been

about the potential for ecotourism to the biodiversity

conservation and environmental protection with the demands of community

development in rural areas (Ashley & Garland 1

significant C'Lt.'~"L,'UIl been given to the role which

socio-economic upliHment of local populations,

1995). particular,

can play in securing

local pride in indigenous

cultural and offering communities economic incentives to protect natural

resources 1 Colvin, 1994; Urquhart, 1995).

However, also cautioned against uncritical of

ecotourism as a solution to development dilemma of resources while

improving livelihoods (Cater, 1994; Khan, 1996; Goodwin, 1 1997).

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

3

They warn that 'ecotourism is no panacea' (Goodwin, 1996: 287) nor 'some magic

hybrid, bringing bountiful returns without adverse impacts' (Cater, 1994: 89). The

negative face of ecotourism development that is supposedly , or

'appropriate' has prompted critical reviews (Wheeler, 1992; Hall, 1994a; Hall,

19994b; King et al., 1996). Indeed, the skepticism with which ecotourism is regarded

by some is evident in their adoption of alternative permutations of the term, including

'ecoterrorism' (Pleumarom, 1995) and 'egotourism' (Munt, 1994).

The extent of the negative socio-cultural impacts of tourism on host communities has

led King and Stewart (1996) to suggest that promoting ecotourism as a development

strategy that improves the welfare of indigenous people can only be viewed as

'disingenuous, at best' (King et al., 1996: 293). This perspective is similar to that of

Hall (1994b), who highlights that ecotourism resu1ts in the imposition of western

values and, consequently, erosion. Goodwin concurs: 'eco-missionaries can

expect to be accused of green imperialism and ceo-colonialism' (Goodwin, 1996:

284).

In a seminal work on ecotourism, Whelan (1991 :9) comments that 'one of the most

egregious shortcomings of most ecotourism projects is that the local people are not

given any role in the planning process or implementation .. .'. De Vletter (1993 :8)

describes community participation as 'the most critical aspect of

development'. Numerous authors have emphasised that local participation In

ecotourism is essential if this form of tourism is to be sustainable and make a positive

contribution to the local community. For example, the importance of participation by

communities, in the ecotourism development process, is addressed by Lovel and

Feuerstein (992). They point out that: 'without community involvement in planning

tourism and exercising some degree of local control over tourism resources and the

revenue generated, tourism will experience difficulty in moving away from a largely

community exploitative model which undernlines fundamental principles and

objectives of community development' (Lovel & Feuerstein, 1992: 350).

This paper focuses on local community development of an

ecotourism venture. It is based on a case of a proposed community-based

ecotourism rural area of Shewula, north-eastern Swaziland. The

3

warn that 'ecotourism is no panacea' (Goodwin, 1996: 287) nor

hybrid, bringing bountiful returns without adverse impacts' (Cater, 1994: 89). The

face of ecotourism that is supposedly , or

'appropriate' has prompted critical (\-Vheeler, 1992;

19994b; King et al., 1(96). skepticism with which ecotourism is

some is evident in their adoption pem1utations of the tcnn, including

'ecoterrorism' (Pleumarom, 19(5) and 'egotourism' (Munt, 19(4).

The extent of the negative socio-cultural impacts of tOUl1sm on host communities

and Stewart (1996) to that promoting ecotourism as a

strategy that improves the people can only as

'disingenuous, at best' (King et

Hall (1994b), who hi ghlights that

This perspective is similar to that of

results in the imposition western

values and, consequently, cultural Goodwin concurs: 'eco-missionaries can

to be accused of green imperialism and ceo-colonialism' (Goodwin, 1996:

In a seminal work on ecotourism, Whelan (1991 :9) comments that 'one of the

shortcomings of most ecotourism projects is that the local people are not

in the planning process or implementation .. .'. De Vletter (1993

community participation as most critical aspect of

development', Numerous authors that local participation m

ecotourism is essential if this fom1 of is to be sustainable and make a positive

contribution to the local community. For example, the importance of participation by

host communities, in the ecotourism development process, is addressed by LoveI and

(1 They point out that: 'without community involvement in planning

tourism exercising some degree of local control over tourism resources and the

revenue tourism will experience difficulty moving away from a largely

community exploitative model which undern1ines fimdamental principles and

objectives of community development' (Love! & 1992: 350).

This paper on local community involvement in the development of an

ecotourism venture. It is based on a case a proposed commlmity-based

north-eastern Swaziland. The ecotourism cle,pIJt1el.1t in the rural area of

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

4

paper explores the factors affecting local participation in the context of community­

based ecotourism development. The responses of Shewula community members to the

development are examined in the context of conditions conducive to local

participation. These include local level awareness, support and capacity as well as

engagement with external parties that does not restrict community participation or

undermine the process of local level empowerment. Before entering into this

discussion, background information is provided about the area, its people and the

events leading up to the development of a proposal for ecotourism in Shewula.

Location ofthe study area and description ofthe local context

Shewula is located in the north-eastern part of Swaziland, southern Africa. It stretches

from the Umbuluzi River in the west to the Mozambican border in the east and is

bounded on the south and south-west by two protected areas (see Map 1). Situated

along the escarpment of the Lubombo mountain range, this rural area is occupied by

an indigenous population of Swazi people. The land on which the Shewula

community lives is Swazi Nation Land, and is held in trust for the nation by the King

of Swaziland. It is, therefore, a communal area and is administered by the local chief,

Chief Sifundza, in consultation with a council of male elders known as the Libandla.

These traditional leadership structures control the allocation of land and designate

land-uses.

The majority of the population in Shewula survive by means of subsistence

agriculture although recent droughts and cattle theft have exacerbated already

precarious livelihood conditions. The community is a predominantly traditional

society, and still practices the age-old customs and ceremonies. There are, however,

signs of western influences in processes of acculturation and modernization in

Shewula.

Background to the proposed development and consequent research

In late April 1999, representatives from the Shewula community signed an agreement

which formalised co-operation between themselves and the neighbouring properties

ofMbuluzi Game Reserve, Mlawula Nature Reserve and Sisa Ranch (see Map 1). The

signing saw the establishment of the Lubombo Conservancy, a voluntary association

that has as its vision:

4

paper explores the factors affecting local participation in the context of community­

based ecotourism development. The responses of Shewula community members to the

development are examined in the context of conditions conducive to local

participation. These include local level awareness, support and capacity as well as

engagement with external parties that does not restrict community participation or

undermine the process of local level empowerment. Before entering into this

discussion, background information is provided about the area, its people and the

events leading up to the development of a proposal for ecotourism in Shewula.

Location of the study area and description of the local context

Shewula is located in the north-eastern part of Swaziland, southern Africa. It stretches

from the Umbuluzi River in the west to the Mozambican border in the east and is

bounded on the south and south-west by two protected areas (see Map 1). Situated

along the escarpment of the Lubombo mountain range, this rural area is occupied by

an indigenous population of Swazi people. The land on which the Shewula

community lives is Swazi Nation Land, and is held in trust for the nation by the King

of Swaziland. It is, therefore, a communal area and is administered by the local chief,

Chief Sifundza, in consultation with a council of male elders known as the ribandla.

These traditional leadership structures control the allocation of land and designate

land-uses.

The majority of the population in Shewula survIve by means of subsistence

agriculture although recent droughts and cattle theft have exacerbated already

precarious livelihood conditions. The community is a predominantly traditional

society, and still practices the age-old customs and ceremonies. There are, however,

signs of western influences in processes of acculturation and modernization in

Shewula.

Background to the proposed development and consequent research

In late April 1999, representatives from the Shewula community signed an agreement

which formalised co-operation between themselves and the neighbouring properties

ofMbuluzi Game Reserve, Mlawula Nature Reserve and Sisa Ranch (see Map 1). The

signing saw the establishment of the Lubombo Conservancy, a voluntary association

that has as its vision:

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

5

'the long-term conservation ofthe ecosystems ofnorth-eastern Swaziland. .. through

a process ofco-operative nature conservation management and the development of

conservation-based opportunities which create benefits, and contribute to

improvement ofthe quality oflife ofall the people in the region' (Sandwith, 1999).

Prior to the signing, a portion of unoccupied land under the management and control

of Chief Sifundza was designated as the Shewula Game Reserve (see Map 1). The

tem1 is something of a misnomer, since there is little evidence of game species in the

area, as is illustrated by one Shewula resident's comment that: 'If you want to see an

impala, you have to go a long way to see it'. However, the region in which the

community's reserve is located has been characterised as a high biodiversity area (de

Vletter, 1997) and important habitat types, such as ironwood forests, have been

identified in parts of the Shewula Game Reserve (Sandwith, 1999). The formation of

the communitv's reserve is an important part of a larger initiative to consolidate land

for conservation purposes, and strengthen conservation efforts in the area.

During the period leading up to the commitment of community land for conservation,

a need was identified to provide the Shewula community with incentives to protect

the natural landscape of Shewula. It was suggested that tourism development be

considered. With the financial support of local stakeholders, the Shewula communi

leadership visited examples of other community-based ecotourism development

elsewhere. A few months later, the Swaziland branch of the British Council called for

proposals for funding from non-governmental organisations interested in implemented

poverty alleviation projects.

Representatives from the two protected areas, and other local interests such as

Sugar Estate (see Map 1), worked together with members of the

community to draft a proposal for tourism accommodation facilities in Shewula. The

development was originally conceptualised as a "bushcamp" that would provide

visitors with the opportunity to experience traditional Swazi culture in the semi­

natural setting of the community's reserve. The idea was to set up a traditional Swazi

village in which guests could stay overnight, learn about the local culture, eat

traditional food, and appreciate the beauty of the surroundings.

5

long-term of the of north-eastern Swaziland. .. through

a of co-operative nature conservation management and the de)"eloprnent of

conservation-based opportunities which create benejits, and contribute to

improvement of the quality of life the people I (Sandwith, 1999).

Prior to the signing, a portion of unoccupied land under the management and control

of Chief Sifundza\vas designated as the Shewula Game (see Map 1). The

term is something a misnomer, since there is little evidence of game in the

area, as is illustrated by one Shewula comment you want to see an

impala, you have to a long way to see it'. However, the region in which the

communitis reserve IS located has characterised as a biodiversity area (de

Vletter, 1997) and important habitat such as ironwood forests, been

identified parts of the Shewu1a Game (Sandwith, 1999). The fonnation of

the community'S reserve is an important part of a larger initiative to consolidate land

tor conservation purposes, and strengthen conservation efforts the area.

During the period leading up to the commitment of conmmnity land for vv"''''v~

a was identified to provide the Shewula cOlllinunity with incentives to protect

the natural landscape of Shewula. It was suggested that tourism develop.ment be

considered. With the iinancial support oflocal stakeholders, Shm.,rula community's

leadership visited of other community-based ecotourism development

elsewhere. A few months later, the Swaziland branch of the British Council called for

proposals for funding from non-governmental organisations interested in implemented

poverty alleviation projects.

Representatives from the two protected areas, and other local interests such as

Tambankulu Sugar Estate Map 1), worked together with members of

community to draft a proposal for tourism accommodation in Shewu1a.

development was originaUy conceptualised as a "bushcamp" would provide

visitors with opportunity to experience traditional Swazi culture in the

natural the community's reserve. The idea was to set up a traditional Swazi

village guests could stay overnight, about local culture, eat

traditional food, and appreciate the beauty of the surroundings.

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

Sou

ther

n A

fric

a

----

Inte

mat

iona

l B

ord

er

-­

Roa

ds

Lub

ombo

C

onse

rvan

cy

She

'MJl

a C

om

mu

nity

Res

iden

tial A

rea

-­

Rai

lway

-

Riv

ers

10

o 10

N +

20

30

Km

--~ ~

-­

-

.. " ".

".

Sout

h A

fiic

a /.

\ M

ozam

biqu

e"

. .. " ."

., . /.

'/

Swaz

iland

Mbu

luzi

Gam

e R

eser

ve

,.,.

\ \ . \

..' ..~

.

\ \ \

Map

1:

Pro

pert

ies

incl

uded

in

the

Lub

ombo

Con

serv

ancy

Sou

ther

n A

fric

a

Sw

azil

and

----

Inte

mat

iona

l B

ord

er

-R

oads

Lub

ombo

C

onse

rvan

cy

. S

he'M

Jla

Co

mm

un

ity R

esid

entia

l Are

a

-R

ailw

ay

-R

iver

s

10

o 10

N +

20

30

Km

.. ",

"'.",

Sout

h A

fric

a /--

\ M

ozam

biqu

e '"

/"

.. ", ."

, /"

.. "',

/"-

/" ..

Swaz

iland

Mbu

luzi

Gam

e R

eser

ve

LorJrBlu~

\. ---.

_, ."

., \ \

. -\

\ \ \

Map

1:

Pro

pert

ies

incl

uded

in

the

Lub

ombo

Con

serv

ancy

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

7

The design of the facilities was also planned to accommodate western comforts. It

was envisaged that the Mbuluzi Game Reserve would provide technical assistance

and a route of access to development, from across the Umbuluzi River.

immediate goals of the project, as stated in original proposal (Segar, et ai.,

1999), include reduction of unemployment, income generation through ccotourism,

and self-employment through increased local economic activity. The long-term

objectives include conservation of pristine land of great ecological value in Swazi

Nation Land, economic empowerment of the community, raising the standard of

living of the community, and an increased sense of civic responsibility (Ibid.).

Since no recognised non-governmental organisation (NGO) existed the community

itself, the proposal was submitted to the British Council in mid-1998 via a regional

NGO, the Umbuluzi Catchment Association (UCA). The Shewula community is an

associate member of the UCA. Towards the end of 1998, the tourism development

proposal was accepted, and approximately R300 000 was allocated to the project

under the British Council's Poverty Alleviation Programme.

The case of the proposed Shewula tourism development is, therefore, relatively

unusual, that communal land has been earmarked for conservation and tourism

development by local people, rather than through government decree, protected area

management policies or private sector interests. Local initiative, supported by input

from regional interests and funding NGOs, has created a situation in which local

people have a significant degree of responsibility in the development of an ecotourism

venture and they have the neeessary capital investment to retain ownership of

development. They do not need to be 'given' a role (Whelan, 1991) in the ecotourism

development at Shewula. They are in this position already and they are the primary

role-players, as well as the primary stakeholders, in the development.

Subsequent to the granting of funds, a feasibility study of the development was

commissioned by the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF), an NGO which has, as one of its

primary objectives, the formation of transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs). PPF

has an interest in the region within which the development would take place because

of its proximity to the proposed Maputaland TFCA. The feasibility study aimed to

7

The design the facilities was also planned to accommodate western comforts. It

was Mbuluzi Reserve provide '..,V.'LLUV<-U

and a route of access to the

1999), UiviL,Uv

itself,

proposal was aC(;COlea

case

unusual,

the

people,

uU;U'US"'UvJlU IJ'''U\.'''''' or

from

the cornmum

all()catea to the

IS,

et

IS an

area

people

venture and

""JIJUJ"UL of an .,"'",1"r»1,..,

investment to retain

VLV,,,U.VU, at Shewula. are the

as as

of funds, a ,,,",ue,,L".'

SSlOIleu by

PPF

its nrr'VI1rr1 to "''''' .......... TFCA. to

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

8

assess the environmental lrr1n~{'T~ and socio-cultural implications of the planned

development, and to identify the capacity-building requirements associated

with community-based ecotourism development. This paper is based on the research

that was undertaken for the feasibility study, which was done by a group of Masters

students from the University of Cape

Research Methodology

A qualitative methodology was adopted for the research. The research was

exploratory in nature and was therefore characterised by flexibilitv in the research

design that would enable the research process to be responsive to initial findings and

adapted accordingly. A number of research methods were used to enhance the

reliability of the findings. These included document analysis, participant observation,

group discussions, and semi-structured, informal interviews.

The fieldwork comoonent of the research was based on a six-week period of extensive

consultation with the local community. Fieldwork activities included interactive

workshops with the community and other interested parties, site visits to the

Game Reserve and a neighbouring community in Mozambique, informal gatherings

with community members and conversations with individual community members.

The responses of Shewula community members were documented, often in the form

of direct quotes. In addition, some members of the Shewula community assisted the

researchers by actively participating in data collection. Their results helped to verify

and clarify the attitudes and perceptions were being documented by other means.

A review of existing case studies and other relevant literature provided the theoretical

context for analysis of the documented responses and other research findings. A

conceptual framework was developed that identified key elements of sustainable

community-based ecotourism, and the findings were then analysed within the context

of the currently dominant discourse of sustainable development and, in particular, the

notion of sustainable tourism.

Limitations

Aside from the limitations that are inherent in adopting a qualitative research

approach (Maxwell, 1996), the research was limited by a number of practical

assess the

,",Vl.U-HUH',H --"'",,,,",u ecotourism

\lpr.ol HI of

qualitative methodology was

exploratory in

.... vu~'"'u that

of

discussions,

was

community and

res~;:af(~hers by actively

the

and

context documented

framework was

8

requirements """V\.cl " .... 'u

was a

for the The

flexibility

re~;DOnSJlVe to

were used to

was based on a

Fieldwork

III H L'-'.£.<UJU,l

period

was

.... u'-"u.'6'"' and

the

community

to

means.

community-based within the context

and, in

sustainable

Limitations

Aside are a qualitative

research was limited by a of

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

9

constraints. These included time constraints and the use of translation between

English and seSwati. The former was influenced by funding constraints as well as the

availability of Shewula residents to participate in the research activities. The latter

was partially mitigated by having more than one bilingual person present during the

research activities in order to enhance the reliability of interpretation and provide

clarity when confusion arose.

A note on terminology

The term 'community' is useful in defining a group of people, such as the Shewula

community, who share a common identity and code for conduct (Bhattacharyya,

1995) and whose place-oriented social interactions (Zekeri et al., 1994: 218) mean

they will all be affected by the proposed development. However, as Boonzaier

(1996) points out, a community is not a homogenous entity: 'the local popUlation is

not a like-minded 'communiti whose members all share the same

(Boonzaier, 1996: 309). Thus, there may be conflicting and divergent points of view.

In the pages that follow, the responses of Shewula community to the proposal for

ecotourism development are analysed as trends or patterns of divergence, with

specific comments being attributed to 'residents' or 'members' of the Shewula

community, and not to the community as a whole.

Community-based ecotourism: a theoretical review

The definition of "ecotourism" has been widely discussed and debated in the literature

(see, for example, Roe et al., 1997:8 for some of the more frequently quoted

definitions), but there is no universally accepted definition (Goodwin, 1996).

Ecotourism as a concept has been used variously to 'describe an activity, set forth a

philosophy and espouse a model of development' (Ziffer, 1989, cited in Bottrill et ai.,

1995). Despite accusations that ecotourism is 'an eco-fayade' (Pleumarom, 1995) and

more than a worthless cliche' (Hall, 1994b), the application of the term to

genuine attempts at sustainable tourism development can prove useful; and several

attempts have been made to operationalise such applications (Bottrill et ai., 1995,

Blarney, 1997).

A common theme in definitions of ecotourism is the emphasis on the importance of a

natural, relatively undisturbed setting for the tourism activity (Wallace, 1996;

was

clarity

included time

The former was

vu" .. vu,,, to

more

in order to enhance

vVJeul.l,O.L""j..L arose.

9

use

funding .... """"'<>1

one bilingual person 1"I1'pcP1"'I

reliability of n" lteI1)n:tatlon

A note on

The term is useful U'-'JLHu.n;;:. a as

1

that

(1996)

not a

(Boonzaier, 1

[n the

ecotourism

a common

am~ct(;:a by the

a community is not a

'community'

specific comments

are analysed as

attributed to

community as a not to

for conduct

.. ",'iV"'" (Zekeri et aI.,

development.

entity:

community to

or patterns of n".rp1":>P1"'I

or 'members'

Community-based ecotourism: a theoretical review

The definition has and debated

more

as the

latter

the

mean

with

for

definitions),

Ecotourism as a

philosophy

(Goodwin, 1

an activity, set a

Despite

more than a

npl1l1111"p attempts at

"++." ....... "'t,, have

Blarney, 1

common

relatively

development'

ecotourism is 'an

cliche' (Hall, 1

tourism

to operationalise

ecotourism is

for the

1989, cited

- ..L'wy ....... '-' (Pleurnarom,

term to

(Bottrill et

empn,lSls on the 1m'''''.,.,-'' .... a

1

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

10

Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). Although it has been suggested that ecotourism can occur

in an urban context (Weaver, 1998) ecotourism is usually, if implicitly, described as a

nature tourism. Goodwin (1996) distinguishes between nature tourism and

ecotourism on the basis that while both allow for enjoyment of nature, ecotourism is

additionally characterised by a sense of environmental responsibility.

This responsibility extends, to various degrees in different definitions, to both the

biophysical and socio-cultural components of the environment. While some argue that

distinguishing feature of ecotourism should be that it makes a contribution to

'biodiversity conservation' (Brandon and Margoluis, 1996: 35), Hyndman ooints out

that 'cultural diversity and biological diversity are mutually dependent and

coterminous' (Hyndman, 1994:300). In fact, Barkin argues that 'biodiversity

conservation' is a concept which, 'in its broadest sense, encompasses not only

threatened flora and fauna, but also the survivability of...human communities, as

stewards of the natural environment and as producers' (Barkin, 1996: 265). Thus, the

environmental responsibility of ecotourism extends beyond the purely biophysical

domain, to encompass the social aspects of environment as well.

The ambit of ecotourism's social responsibility varies in different conceptualisations

of the concept. It can range from sustaining the well-being of local inhabitants

(Gakahu, 1993; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996) and improving their socio-economic

standing through community development (MacGregor, 1996) to maintaining and

even restoring the culture of an indigenous population (Colvin, 1994; Ashley & Roe,

1998). Some definitions of ecotourism even include references to the role that cultural

heritage can play in attracting ecotourism (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Ziffer 1989

cited in Goodwin, 1996). But few authors stipulate the involvement of the

popUlation in ecotourism as a defining characteristic.

Thus, despite an emphasis on benefits to local populations, and the role which their

culture might play in attracting ecotourism, the notion itself does not assume that the

responsibility for planning and implementing an ecotourism venture rests with

local people. Hence, in instances where the local community is a primary role-player,

as well as the primary stakeholder, the ecotourism development has been

characterised as 'community-based' (Sproule, 1996; Gaisford, 1997). Sproule defines

man

1

context

nature tourism.

on the basis

characterised

10

L ,,",U"-.'",",," it has su~~ge~s{e~(] that can occur

if implicitly, .... "'.:J,'"'~"J"'u. as a

UU,,,,,,.""~A'."" between nature tourism and

both allow for PTlllHrrn of Ivlv'JlVUH"ll1 IS

This 1'p"""£,>",<,, Hr.~·p"t definitions, to both the

components the

ecotourism should

While some that

that it makes a to

conservation' (Brandon and Margoluis, 1 35),

that 'cultural diversity biological are mutually

(Hyndman, In argues that

out

and

IS a sense, encompasses not only

the survivability of ... hurnan as

VillUlvJliL and as producers' (Barkin, 1996: the the natural

vw)mnerUal responsibility

domain, to encompass the

ecotourism the

"'C"13I'TC of

ecotourism's responsibility different conceptualisations

It can sustaining the

1993; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996) and

even

1998).

heritage can

community

culture

definitions of Pl'll"n11l" even include rptprp'"

cited 1996). But authors stipulate

popUlation ecotourism as a .... "'J,Hn."'''' characteristic.

Thus, an emphasis on uv.l.LvJ.1L" to local

in attracting the notion

planning and

of local

their

to HA~UH"UUHH5 and

to the role that

1996;

involvement of

Roe,

the role which

not assume that

venture rests

culture

responsibility

local people.

as well as

in instances local community is a primary

pnmary ecotourism

characterised as 'community-based' 1996; 1997). Sproule

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

11

community-based ecotourism as 'ecotourism enterprises that are owned managed

by the community' (Sproule, 1996: 233), where to 'a group of

people, often living in the same geographic area, who themselves as

belonging to the same group' (Sproule, 1996: 235).

Shewula: a community-based ecotourism development?

Although the tenns 'ecotourism' and 'community-based' were not used to describe the

fonn of tourism proposed for Shewula (Segar et ai., 1999), the envisaged tourism

product arguably be classified as a community-based ecotourism venture, [or a

number of reasons.

with respect to contributing to biodiversity conservation (in its restrictive,

biophysical sense), the proposed development is intended to conserve what is believed

to be 'pristine land of great ecological value in Swazi Nation Land' (original proposal,

Segar, et al., 1999). Input into the planning process has also been received from

numerous initiatives concerned with biodiversity conservation, including the

Maputaland TFCA, a national biodiversity initiative and the local private and public

reserves. This has placed the conservation of species and habitats on a development

agenda that is primarily animated by a sense of socia-cultural responsibility .

Secondly, although the Shewula Game Reserve lacks ..,...,"","'."".., and

obvious public appeal of impressive ecosystems, such as forests, which attract

ecotourists (Mendelsohn, 1994), there is significant no;pntl for ecotourism in the

combination of a semi-natural, wilderness area with the cultural assets of the Shewula

community. There is also market potential in the interest and commitment shown by a

rural community that takes real steps in caring for its environment, such as

establishing its own protected area. Indeed, the findings of a study cited by McCool

(1995) would seem to indicate that commitment to environmental responsibility is an

attractive feature of an ecotourism destination. The study found that when identifying

characteristics of a tourism destination that influence destination choice, 65% of

travelers felt that 'a place that takes care of its environment' is very important, while

44% rated 'a chance to see wildlife and undisturbed nature' as very important. There

is, therefore, significant potentia] for character of the natural and cultural environment

in Shewula to attract ecotollrism.

11

community-based ecotourism as

by the community' (Sproule, 1

often living in

'VUF,UJlF, to same group'

Shewula: a community-based eC(~lOi'll

to

the tenns ''''''''-Tn'''''''

proposed

arguably be V,W'''C>JU.'''.'U as a " ... ,mn1,

reasons.

l"P"1'\PJ~T to contributing to

the proposed development is

of great ecological

Input into the planning

numerous initiatives concerned with

a national biodiversity UHU"U

reserves. This has placed the conservation

UF"",u,-",,, that is primarily animated by a sense

Shewula Game

of impressive ecosystems,

1 there is

,",UJeA ...... " ...... " .. , wilderness area with the

ill

ill

are

(in

to conserve

",,,,r,T,,,,,,T,o,rI area. Indeed, the findings of a

to

.lU~U"'u,,,,, that commitment to en'Vlronme~m::u ,.,~",.",,"n

.... ""'"u ..... u'vu. The study found

'v ..... o .... U.V"'.lH"'U""H that influence destination

environment' is very

and undisturbed nature' as very important.

for of the natural and

to attract '"'''''''v'''''

as

a

attract

a

as

IS an

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

12

the community-based nature of the project is evident in the business plan for

the development. The plan emphasises community ownership of the tourism

development and the intention to facilitate a 'build-operate-transfer' process whereby

the completed tourism facility would initially be run by an independent operator,

would eventually be taken over by local entrepreneurs. Despite envisaged delay

of community control over the daily operation of development, the responsibility

for overall management of tourism in Shewula, including any ancillary tourism

activities and developments, is essentially left in the hands of the Shewula

community.

Having established that the envisaged development is an eeotourism development,

which is also intended to be community-based, the paper now turns to a discussion

local participation. This is an important feature of any tourism development that

aspires to be socio-culturally sustainable and in so doing contribute to community

development.

Local participation in community-based ecotourism

Local participation has been defined as 'the ability of local communities to influence

the outcome of development projects such as ecotourism that have an impact on them'

(Drake, 1991: 132). Cernea (1991) believes that 'giving people more opportunities to

participate effectively in development activities' constitutes local oarticioation. Both

of these definitions tacitly assume that the locus of control over development lies

outside of the community, which is not necessarily the case when the impetus for

development has arisen locally. Thus, Bhattacharyya's (1995: 62) point that

'participation does not mean responding to a pre-formulated agenda ... ' is particularly

relevant the context of community-based development. According to this view,

local participation moves beyond mere involvement in the development processes of

others, to encompass the ability of local people to own and plan their own

development.

In the planning phase, local participation can include activities such as identifying

problems, planning activities, formulating alternatives, and allocating resources

(Drake, 1991: 133). Local participation provides an opportunity for local residents to

provide planning process, allowing for local preferences (Brandon,

Thirdly, V ... ,,' ............ "LH]-U"',"'AJ nature of the project is in the business plan

the

development

plan emphasises

HU,.,'".lUlVU to facilitate a

ownership of the

bUll1d,·oTIlenlte,-tnmster' process whereby

the completed

would eventually

of community I'nrlN"n

for overall ""ULUfS"""U'-'"U'

activities

community.

Having established

which is also .. ""~u, ... "'~

local participation.

aspires to be

development.

Local participation

Local participation

outcome of

1991: 132).

PaIl1Cmare effectively

definitions

would initially be run

over by local entrepreneur

daily operation of

tourism Shewula,

is essentially

envisaged

responsibility

ancillary tourism

of the Shewula

envisaged development is an PI'()ttYllr1CrYI development,

community-based,

IS an important feature

sustainable and in so

community-based

Y'-""Uj\"", as 'the ability

such as ecotourism

(1991) believes that

elopment activities'

now turns to a U.l,:>vUC • .:>HJ'U

development

to community

COlTInmfnt1les to influence

an impact on them'

1J'-"JIJ'.v more opportunities to

outside of the is not necessarily impetus for

development has 62) point that

'participation does not mean respondllng to a pre-formulated ~a~'L~~'~"" is particularly

context

participation moves

to encompass

I-Ha"uu"uiS phase, local

planning

1:133), Local

into

development. to this view,

mere involvement in the processes of

local people to own own

can include

an opportunity

for local

resources

to

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

13

1993) and indigenous knowledge (Hyndman, 1994) to be incorporated during the

development process. The involvement of local people in ecotourism planning can

also strengthen the socio-cultural sustainability of the development (Gaisford, 1997).

Local participation is especially important for community-based development, since

the project cannot be achieved without the involvement of local people, their support

and their commitment (Trent, 1996). Sense of ownership is also an important function

of local participation in community-based ecotourism development (Brandon, 1993;

Urquhart, 1995).

Extent oflocal participation in Shewula

According to Ashley and Roe (1998) the extent of local participation in a tourism

initiative can range from passive individual involvement to full collective

participation. To date, the degree of involvement oflocal residents in the project cycle

for the Shewula ecotourism development has varied from full participation to a

complete lack of involvement. Some members of the community, most often those in

positions of power, have been involved in planning the project. For example, the

Chief and members of the Libandla have identified a number of alternative sites for

the proposed development. Most residents have, however, not been actively involved.

Some have been passively involved, in that they have been informed of the project.

Others have remained unaware of the proposal for development. The various levels of

awareness and involvement are associated with different degrees of support for the

project. Some of the factors affecting both levels of local support and local

participation are discussed below.

Factors affecting local participation in ecotourism development

There are a diverse range of factors that can affect local participation in planning for

ecotourism development. As the above discussion has shown, much has been made of

the role that outsiders can play in facilitating local participation, by giving local

communities opportunities to participate in planning an ecotourism venture

themselves. However, as the following discussion will demonstrate, removing

external constraints to local participation does not necessarily result in the desired

levels of participation. There may also be intrinsic factors affecting local participation

that are influenced by the local socio-political and cultural context. These factors can

affect local participation in various ways, both directly and indirectly. In the case of

l3

1993) and indigenous knowledge (Hyndman, 1994) to be incorporated during the

development process. The involvement of local people in ecotourism planning can

also strengthen the socio-cultural sustainability of the development (Gaisford, 1997).

Local participation is especially important for community-based development, since

the project cannot be achieved without the involvement of local people, their support

and their commitment (Trent, 1996). Sense of ownership is also an important function

of local participation in community-based ecotourism development (Brandon, 1993;

Urquhart, 1995).

Extent of local participation in Shewula

According to Ashley and Roe (1998) the extent of local participation in a tourism

initiative can range from passive individual involvement to full collective

participation. To date, the degree of involvement oflocal residents in the project cycle

for the Shewula ecotourism development has varied from fun participation to a

complete lack of involvement. Some members of the community, most often those in

positions of power, have been involved in planning the project. For example, the

Chief and members of the Libandla have identified a number of alternative sites for

the proposed development. Most residents have, however, not been actively involved.

Some have been passively involved, in that they have been informed of the project.

Others have remained unaware of the proposal for development. The various levels of

awareness and involvement are associated with different degrees of suppati for the

project. Some of the factors affecting both levels of local support and local

participation are discussed below.

Factors affecting local participation in ecotourism development

There are a diverse range of factors that can affect local participation in planning for

ecotourism development. As the above discussion has shown, much has been made of

the role that outsiders can play in facilitating local participation, by giving local

communities opportunities to participate in planning an ecotourism venture

themselves. However, as the following discussion will demonstrate, removing

external constraints to local participation does not necessarily result in the desired

levels of participation. There may also be intrinsic factors affecting local participation

that are influenced by the local socio-political and cultural context. These factors can

affect local participation in various ways, both directly and indirectly. In the case of

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

14

Shewu1a, the conditions conducive to participation, such as awareness and support,

have been influenced by a number of factors. In addition, even when these conditions

have been met, local capacity (or the lack thereof) to participate effectively in

planning for ecotourism development has affected local participation. Some of the

factors affecting the level of local participation in the proposed Shewula ecotourism

development are further discussed below.

Local support for ecotourism development

Although the proposed Shewula tourism development was initiated at a local level,

those initially involved constituted a minority of the local population. This is partly

the result of selective targeting of local leaders by outsiders who sought to encourage

local participation in ecotourism and conservation, by exposing the community's

traditional leadership to other examples of community-based ecotourism. Significant

obstacles have been encountered in trying to generate a similar awareness among

local community members, and gaining their support for the proposal for ecotourism

development. The following discussion explores some of the factors affecting local

awareness of and support for community-based ecotourism in Shewula which have, in

tum, affected local pm1icipation.

Power relations, access to information and attendance at meetings

Brandon (1993: 147-148) contends that 'authority structures may inhibit extensive

participation in decision-making' and that 'strong leaders and existing power

structures may not want a participatory process to be initiated that will challenge the

status quo and thus their leadership'. Some responses of Shewula residents would

suggest that this is the case. Comments that the planning process was not 'people­

centred', that 'the elders should have briefed the people that this was going to happen'

and 'the chief didn't tell them all the nitty-gritties. He didn't inform the people' could

be interpreted as substantiating the conclusion that local elites are preventing

participation.

However, most of the critical comments obtained from residents, regarding the

planning process to date, were less concerned with participation in decision-making

than with the communication of the intentions of the local leadership, and access to

information. For example, when discussions turned to the funds that were available

14

Shewu1a, the conditions conducive to participation, such as awareness and support,

have been influenced by a number of factors. In addition, even when these conditions

have been met, local capacity (or the lack thereof) to participate effectively in

planning for ecotourism development has affected local participation. Some of the

factors affecting the level of local participation in the proposed Shewu]a ecotourism

development are further discussed below.

Local support for ecotourism development

Although the proposed Shewula tourism development was initiated at a local level,

those initially involved constituted a minority of the local population. This is partly

the result of selective targeting of local leaders by outsiders who sought to encourage

local participation in ecotourism and conservation, by exposing the community's

traditional leadership to other examples of community-based ecotourism. Significant

obstacles have been encountered in trying to generate a similar awareness among

local community members, and gaining their support for the proposal for ecotourism

development. The following discussion explores some of the factors affecting local

awareness of and support for community-based ecotourism in Shewula which have, in

tum, affected local pmiicipation.

Power relations, access to information and attendance at meetings

Brandon (1993: 147-148) contends that 'authority structures may inhibit extensive

participation in decision-making' and that 'strong leaders and existing power

structures may not want a participatory process to be initiated that will challenge the

status quo and thus their leadership'. Some responses of Shewula residents would

suggest that this is the case. Comments that the planning process was not 'people­

centred', that 'the elders should have briefed the people that this was going to happen'

and 'the chief didn't tell them all the nitty-gritties. He didn't inform the people' could

be interpreted as substantiating the conclusion that local elites are preventing

participation.

However, most of the critical comments obtained from residents, regarding the

planning process to date, were less concerned with participation in decision-making

than with the communication of the intentions of the local leadership, and access to

information. For example, when discussions turned to the funds that were available

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

15

for construction of tourism facilities, residents wanted to know who had "' ..... LHUH<vU

proposal for funding, and to whom. The importance of communication for

community-based ecotourism projects was therefore highlighted. as was the need for a

reliable source of information. As one individual stated: 'Sometimes, if you don't talk

out these things, it results in rumors and creates conflict or confusion. If the concept

comes out from nowhere, it meet so rather it should come from

reliable sources.'

Those more actively planning the project, countered accusations that

Chief Sifundza and Libandla had neglected to inform their constituency about the

development. These people have suggested that negative responses, including

skepticism and resistance, are the result of local apathy and political rivalry. Active

boycotts of some meetings conducted during the research period, which were called in

order to discuss the proposed development, would appear to substantiate the argument

that lack of awareness about or resistance to the project are the result of politically

motivated non-attendance at project meetings. Poor attendance at these meetings has

also been associated with a 'wait-and-see' attitude, with some residents characterising

local skeptics as 'doubting Thomases'.

Therc are also other factors that could influence attendance at meetings. These

limited time for engagement in activities other than those absolutely necessary for

daily subsistence, and the effect of poor weather, especially rain, which

the poor conditions of roads and footpaths can preclude attendance at meetings.

addition, gender can also affect participation, especially if the locality in which

meetings are held excludes female members of the community. extent to which

local residents perceive themselves as stakeholders in the development is another key

factor affecting attendance at meetings. This stakeholder status is the product of a

number of factors, including the right to access local resources and the expectation of

benefits from development.

Rights of access to local resources

Local rights over resources is often cited as a necessary prerequisite for effective local

participation (Ashlcy & Garland, 1994; Child, 1996). Clearly defined rights and

over natural resources, including land, are essential for any community­

15

for construction of tourism J.U"'UH.'v"" L"''''' .... ...,HCO

proposal for funding, and to

community-based ecotourism

reliable source of information.

out these things, it results in rumors

comes out from nowhere, it

reliable sources.'

Those more actively involved

Sifundza and

These people

""'\-'IJLlvli~.ul and resistance, are

meet

some meetings conducted

to discuss the proposed development,

to

lack of awareness about or resistance to the project are

non-attendance at project meetings. Poor "n"'L",,""L.<",,",

been associated with a 'wait-and-see' attitude, with some

local as 'doubting Thomases'.

need for a

don't talk

the concept

it should corne from

Uv~'U",c.Ll\}l.l" that

about the

including

Active

are also other factors that could influence attendance at LU,","LH.li"."

for engagement in activities other

subsistence, and the effect of poor "'?,"Clot,pr

poor conditions of roads and footpaths can

addition, gender can also affect participation, especially

are held excludes female members of

themselves as stakeholders in

........ v ... " ......... ",."" ... n.uu.',",,", at meetings. This stakeholder status is

including the right to access local resources and

resources

over resources is cited as a necessary prerequisite for "' ...... ,-'v ..

1 Child, 1996). Clearly defined rights

over resources, LUV" ...... ULh land, are essential for any

a

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

16

based initiative that seeks to utilise these resources and the ri!!ht to manage

them in order to secure benefits for the community. In the case of Shewula, the power

vested in the chief with respect to land allocation fulfils this requirement. However,

the rights of community members to access these resources are just as important for

broad-based local pmiicipation. This is illustrated by the responses of the people

living at Nduma, a sub-region of

The residents of do not have security of land tenure, and are only able to

claim temporary residence in the area in which they live. Explanations for this

situation revolve around a recent split in an adjacent community living in the nearby

border town of Lomahasha (see Map 1). The division saw a number of people

changing allegiance to the chief of Shewula, and coming to live in the previously

unoccupied area of Nduma. The situation has placed Chief Sifundza in a politically

UlJ.l.i", ..m position, in which the granting of permanent residence is weighed against

intensifYing rivalry between chiefdoms.

political tensions and lack of clarity about rights of access to resources have

affected the responses of Nduma residents. The prevailing level of support for the

project among these residents is tempered by fears that their lack of secure, permanent

residence would mean that they would be 'left out' when the time came to allocate

benefits from the proposed project. These responses also show

expectations of costs and benefits can have on local residents' SUDDort of ecotourism

development.

Local cost-benefit analyses

If local people are to support a development such as community-based ecotourism,

the potential benefits must be seen, by the beneficiaries, to outweigh the opportunity

costs that will be incurred (Ashley & Garland, 1994). This is clearly illustrated by the

responses of residents living adjacent to the Shewula Game Reserve. These residents

registered a significant level of resistance to the chosen form of land use. Their

overtly stated concern is the potential loss of access to resources, in particular grazing

land for cattle, as a result of the area being designated for integrated conservation and

ecotourism development. The perception is common among these residents that

tourism is primarily nature-based, that tourists would only want to sec game and not

16

initiative that seeks to utilise these resources

them in order to secure benefits for the community.

in the chief with respect to land aLlloc~lt1Cm

the of community members to access

broad-based local pmiicipation. This is

at Nduma, a sub-region of

vu~, .. '"'u.u of Nduma do not have

tenrmc)raJ"V residence in the area

around a recent split an

Lomahasha (see Map 1) .

resources are

.... "''''6~'''''''.'''' to the chief of Shewula, and ~~ .•••• ".,..,

Nduma. The situation has

which the granting of permanent

rivalry between chiefdoms.

are able to

a politically

tensions and lack of clarity about rights access to resources

am~ctt~a the responses of Nduma residents. The

costs

overtly

land

residents is tempered fears that their

would mean that they would be 'left out'

the proposed project. These responses

costs benefits can have on local

1-1""'''1-11"", are to support a development such as ,",V,'U1JUUJ"U

IS

seen, beneficiaries, to outweigh

(Ashley Garland, 1994). This is clearly

to the Shewula Game Reserve.

to the chosen form of land use.

of access to resources, in particular

area being designated for integrated conservation

perception is common among these that

that tourists would only want to see game and not

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

17

cattle in the area, and that tourism would therefore require the exclusion of cattle.

This perception is influenced by the current tourism in the area, which is largely

nature-based. However, in view of the lack of game in the Shewula Game Reserve, it

is unlikely that the presence of wildlife would be the main tourism attraction for the

Shewula tourism development, at least not in the short teffi1. for

objections to the designation of the land for tourism and conservation on grounds

that it will exclude cattle appears unwarranted in of the limited grazing available,

and the rugged terrain of this escarpment area makes it difficult to access.

The explanation, however, is to be found in the need for cattle security. Recent attacks

by cattle raiders, who are believed to come from Mozambique, have seen the

movement Shewula Game Reserve area, despite its unsuitability for

grazmg. inaccessibility of the area and its location, make it well-suited to

protecting cattle from cross-border raids which can seriously undeffi1ine a significant

socio-cultural and economic resource in traditional Swazi culture. The importance of

cattle is i1lustrated by one man's comment:

'Swazis are proud of their livestock. For a man to get rid of his livestock is

very difficult. You are not rich without cattle in a kraal, even if you have

several hundreds of thousands of Rands in the bank.'

Thus, the development of a fOffi1 of tourism that is believed, residents, to benefit

from exclusionary practices, such as those associated with classical nature

conservation (Hyndman, 1994), is perceived as a threat because it would place a key

socio-economic resource at risk. The complexity of the situation highlights the

context-specific nature of some factors local participation.

Proximity to the area in which the proposed development is to be established is not

the only factor affecting local cost-benefit analysis. The trend for gender differential

responses 01 Shewula community members to the proposed development also shows

gender can influence perceptions of the costs and benefits of a particular

development. For instance, the previously discussed emphasis on the costs of tourism

development and nature conservation to cattle security, was mainly voiced by male

members ofthe society.

cattle in area,

This perception is

nature-based.

is unlikely

Shewula tourism

objections to

that it will "' .... 'LU'"''''

and the

The explanation, nr",,,,,,u

by cattle

movement of

grazmg.

protecting

socio-cultural

cattle is iHustrated one

'Swazis are proud of

17

would therefore require the exclusion

the current tourism in the area,

lack of game in the Shewula p" .. n, ... it

wildlife would the main tourism attr'actlon

not in the short term. In «"",,,LHtVU,

tourism and conservation on

"'''' ...... '.>n1"1'·{1 in light of the limited

area which makes it difficult to access.

for cattle security. ",","V",Vl.'" ... ''' .... '"1''-''

Mozambique, have seen

P"PT\fP area, despite its unsuitability

location, make it well-suited to

which can seriously undermine a

Swazi culture. The

comment:

v • .;"vv,.,-. For a man to get rid of his livestock is

very difficult. You are not urn'"""""" cattle in a kraal, even

n."'-I.JU" in the bank' several hundreds

Thus, the development

from exclusionary

conservation (Hyndman, 1

socio-economic resource at

context-specific nature of some

to the area in

affecting

res:pons«:)s of Shewula vVIUIU.UlU.'J U.,vUJluvl

can influence

For instance, the previously

vlV!JUJ . ..,l .. and nature conservation to

ofthe society.

is by residents, to

with classical

uv .... 'au"v it would place a

situation highlights the

participation.

is to be established is not

gender differential

development also shows

of a particular

costs of tourism

was ~ ......... 1 voiced by male

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

18

In contrast, the responses of women focused mainly on the potential economic

benefits of the project. support the project, and indications of intentions for

future involvement, were based on expectations regarding possibilities of employment

and alternative forms of income. These included the production and sale of traditional

goods such as handicrafts and Swazi food, and thc provision of cultural services such

traamonal dancing and dress. The different responses suggest that identifying whether

benefits of a project will outwcigh the costs, is an intrinsically subjective

evaluation which may be moderated by a variety of factors such as social standing and

control over economic resources. They also serve to highlight the importance of

grass-roots local participation in planning projects that arc intended to benefit the

local people, since local preferences and evaluations may differ from those of

outsiders, or other members of the community.

Local-level understanding about tourism

Once a communiVs awareness of and support for ecotourism development has been

secured, those who desire to be involved in planning and implementing the

development require a degree of understanding of tourism. If communities interested

in undertaking ecotourism development are to develop a suitable LVUlli:>H1 IJLVUUIvL.

which is marketable and environmentally, socio-culturally and economically

sustainable (as genuine ecotourism aims to be), need to have an undcrstanding of

tourism management and how to go about planning a tourism development. They

need to know the potential market power of their product (Ashley & Roe, 1998) and

how to optimise it. They also need to have an awareness of the value of their assets,

so that they do not sign it away 'for a pittance' (Ashley & Roe, 1998) or have

unrealistic expectations (Fowkes, 1994). Local knowledge regarding the nature and

mechanics of tourism, the psychology of tourism, the demands of the market and the

limits of a narticular market is, therefore, essential. In short, as Timothy'S

investigation of participatory planning in tourism concludes, 'action on the part of the

local communitv. by participating in or benefiting from tourism, reqUires some

knowledge about the industry and its impact' (Timothy, 1999:374).

The nature of the tourism industry

Despite earlier comments that some residents are aware of the attraction value that

wildlife has for tourism, the level of understanding in the general popUlation with

women

future'

goods

the

control over eC(mClmlC resources.

local

outsiders, or

Local-level understanding about

Once a community's awareness of

secured, those who to

development require a

in undertaking

which is marketable

sustainable (as h"""""''''''

tourism management

need to know the potential

how to optimise it They also

so that they do not

unrealistic expectations

mechanics of tourism,

limits of a particular

investigation of participatory planning in

local

knowledge about the industry and its

The nature of the tourism industry

comments that some

18

on the potential economic

.1U"uv.~ .. "nLU of intentions for

possibilities of employment

production and sale of traditional

of cultural services such

that identifying whether

is an intrinsically subjective

of factors such as social standing and

serve to highlight the importance of

that arc intended to benefit the

may differ from those of

an awareness

1

are aware

(YnlYlPl'n has been

implementing the

communities interested

.:>U.L""'VJlV <,",n.UL,nu product,

economically

._'_.,-.,,.., of

vl\.> ... .HllvlJl.. They

and

or have

nature and

and the

of the

some

has for tourism, the level of understanding the

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

19

respect to the tourism industry is low, sometimes non-existent. The majority of

residents were unable to respond to questions pertaining to tourism, such as who

tourists are or what tourism entails. They responded, instead, with questions of their

own such as 'Why would a tourist come here?', 'Is a tourist different to a visitor?' and

'Do you need a qualification to be a tourist?'. This suggests a lack of knowledge about

tourism that has also resulted in misunderstandings, confusion and unrealistic

expectations. This may be seen, for example, in residents' perceptions regarding the

expected behaviour of tourists, such as 'Tourists should invest in Shewula'; 'Tourists

should speak our language' and 'Tourists should be happy and try to be with us, try to

become one people, have fun together. If a tourist knows the language, they'll stay.'

Limited exposure to tourism has also affected the local planning process. For

example, one of the decision-making criteria that was used for site selection included

sufficient distance from a nearby river because 'tourists would not like the sound of

running water - the noise would mean they wouldn't be able to sleep at night'.

Suggestions that a hotel should be built, in order to address the lack of tourism

accommodation facilities in Shewula, also point to the limited understanding that

exists regarding alternative forms of tourism other than those that currently dominate

the main tourism destination in Swaziland, namely the Ezulwini Valley. Thus, in

instances where residents have had some exposure to tourism, it has often been

limited to mass tourism. Understanding of ecotourism, as an alternative form of

tourism, is therefore still lacking. This has resulted in a lack of capacity to plan an

appropriate ecotourism development, and has significantly impeded the effective and

meaningful participation of those who are currently participating in the project, or are

interested in being involved. Clearly, if local participation in planning for ecotourism

is to be effective in maximising the market potential of Shewula's assets, the local

people need to be better informed about the needs and aspirations of ecotourists (see,

for example, Blamey and Braithwaite, 1997).

Tourism impacts

Although there was a sense of inadequacy regarding the community's ability to cater

for tourism, there was also a sense of determination that certain negative socio­

cultural impacts should be avoided 'at all cost'. Prostitution, in particular, was singled

out as a form of commodification resulting from tourism that would not be tolerated.

19

respect to the tourism industry is low, sometimes non-existent. The majority of

residents were unable to respond to questions pertaining to tourism, such as who

tourists are or what tourism entails. They responded, instead, with questions of their

own such as 'Why would a tourist come here?', 'Is a tourist different to a visitor?' and

'Do you need a qualification to be a tourist?'. This suggests a lack of knowledge about

tourism that has also resulted in misunderstandings, confusion and unrealistic

expectations. This may be seen, for example, in residents' perceptions regarding the

expected behaviour of tourists, such as 'Tourists should invest in Shewula'; 'Tourists

should speak our language' and 'Tourists should be happy and try to be with us, try to

become one people, have fun together. If a tourist knows the language, they'll stay.'

Limited exposure to tourism has also affected the local planning process. For

example, one of the decision-making criteria that was used for site selection included

sufficient distance from a nearby river because 'tourists would not like the sound of

running water - the noise would mean they wouldn't be able to sleep at night'.

Suggestions that a hotel should be built, in order to address the lack of tourism

accommodation facilities in Shewula, also point to the limited understanding that

exists regarding alternative forms of tourism other than those that currently dominate

the main tourism destination in Swaziland, namely the Ezulwini Valley. Thus, in

instances where residents have had some exposure to tourism, it has often been

limited to mass tourism. Understanding of ecotourism, as an alternative form of

tourism, is therefore still lacking. This has resulted in a lack of capacity to plan an

appropriate ecotourism development, and has significantly impeded the effective and

meaningful participation of those who are currently participating in the project, or are

interested in being involved. Clearly, if local participation in planning for ecotourism

is to be effective in maximising the market potential of Shewula's assets, the local

people need to be better informed about the needs and aspirations of ecotourists (see,

for example, Blarney and Braithwaite, 1997).

Tourism impacts

Although there was a sense of inadequacy regarding the community's ability to cater

for tourism, there was also a sense of determination that certain negative socio­

cultural impacts should be avoided 'at all cost'. Prostitution, in particular, was singled

out as a form of commodification resulting from tourism that would not be tolerated.

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

20

'Selling bodies,' stated one woman, would result in the men 'going with their

knobkerries to the lodge and they will destroy everything'. Her perspective

demonstrates how socio-cultural sustainability is essential to the overall sustainability

of a tourism development.

Fears about the development of prostitution as a result of tourism are likelv to have

been influenced by an awareness that this has been the case other parts of

Swaziland (Harrison, 1992). However, there are other tourism-related impacts that

could affect the biophysical and socio-cultural sustainability of the project, of which

appears to be unaware. In view of the current influences that the

outside world is already having in the area, cultural erosion and the development of

dependency relationships, are potentially significant impacts that could undermine the

marketability of the community's ecotourism product and the effectiveness of the

empowerment objective ofthis community-based ecotourism venture.

Opportunities for enhancing local participation

Johnson (1990) observes that 'empowerment starts with access to information' (cited

Brandon, 1993: 140). Certainly, in the case of most Shewula residents, lack of

information has impeded local participation, because it has resulted in low levels of

awareness about the proposed development and a lack of understanding about

tourism. This has, in tum, reduced the capacity of local people to empower

themselves by planning an appropriate, marketable ecotourism development

be sustainable in the long-term and produce significant community benefits.

Various methods and techniques have been suggested as mechanisms for empowering

populations to participate in tourism development. Timothy (1999) suggests that

awareness building, as a form of resident education, is essential if there is to be local

participation in tourism planning. Skills training and capacity building at

individual level are also important for the empowerment of local people

1996). At the institutional level, it has been suggested that strengthening the

institutional capacity of communities involved in ecotourism projects, or creating new

institutitons where this may be necessary, is important in facilitating collective

participation (Sproule, 1996). An enabling development framework (Brandon &

1992; Gaisford, 1997) and a supportive environment that facilitates local

20

v V'''''' ",,,,' stated one woman, result in men with their

perspective

sustainability

to the lodge will destroy

how socio-cultural ....... c" ... "U ... 'JHL.y is essential to

development.

V"',L<~""VH as a result of rAll'1"1t:lrt"1 are likely to have about the development

influenced by an awareness has been parts of

QL>uauu (Harrison, 1992). are other impacts that

biophysical

appears to

c>v,,'V-vU,UUHU sustainability of which

view of the current that the

is already

aelJerLaenc" relationships, are

area, cultural erosion development of

of the community's ,",,",,,,v'en

emlpowermem objective ofthis cornmum

impacts that the

product and of the

ecotourism venture.

u ...... "'''' for enhancing participation

starts with access to

case of most Shewula : 140).

impeded local

proposed

UVJjJ...,,">JL,A, because it has

(cited

lack of

of

about awareness

local

has, 111 tum, reduced

an appropriate,

the long-term and

techniques

\.uU"Vi'", to participate in

and a lack

capacity of local

''''''',''''''IV ecotourism

"'oUL,ueVUJLL community

will

crn'~"T,'r! as mechanisms empowenng

development. Timothy (1999) that

awareness _"'~"',,",, as a form of resident eUl,lCamOln is essential

tourism planning. Skills

individual are also important

1996). At the institutional level, it

institutional carmCl:!'

institutitons

participation

Wells, 1

communities

be

An

1 and a

and capacity

empowerment of local

that

projects, or new

in facilitating

framework (Brandon

environment that

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

21

participation and partnership-building (Sproule, 1996) can also to overcome

obstacles to local participation. Furthermore, political will, higher-level SUDDort and

commitment are necessary (Gaisford, 1997; Roe et. aI., 1998) as is a flexible

process that allows sufficient time for participation (Torres, 1996; Trent, 1996). Each

of these is further discussed with reference to their application to the case of

ecotourism development in Shewula.

Creating grass-roots awareness and skills training

Some of the residents in Shewula are aware of the problems arising from their lack of

exposure to tourism. Those with a degree of understanding about tourism believe that

awareness and understanding is necessary. As one respondent noted: 'people

don't appreciate the assets that they have, they need to be educated'. Other advocates

of educating the general popUlation focussed on what the community should know in

order to accommodate tourism. For example, one woman felt that 'people must be

taught how to welcome visitors" and another suggested the importance of knowing

how to cater for different tastes.

Others are less self-reflective about ·elatlOnshlp between themselves and visitors

to their community. For example, there is evidence behaviour, such as

begging from visitors, which could undermine the market ....MAnh of Shewula's

tourism product and/or be exacerbated by the development of tourism area. The

issue of acceptable behaviour, from the point of view of both the conmmnity

tourist, would therefore need to be addressed to ensure that the tourism development

is socio-culturally sustainable from both perspectives, in order to maximise the overall

sustainability of the development.

There were many individuals who indicated that they would like to be 'an experienced

somebody' who had access to skills training that would equip them for employment in

the tourism industry or to undertake entrepreneurial activities. Their suggestions on

how to achieve the necessary skills training included training workshops and advice

from experts on how to undertake tourism related activities or produce marketable

crafts. Personal observation would also suggest that the market potential of certain

traditional dishes, especially those rely extensively on bitter herbs, should also be

investigated.

21

and partnership-building (Sproule, 1996) can

U,,.,,,"vH,,., to local participation. Furthermore, political will,

are (Gaisford, 1997; Roe et. 1

that allows sufficient time for participation (Torres, 1

to overcome

is further discussed with reference to their application to case

deve10pment in Shewula.

""UlllI};:; grass-roots awareness and skills training

Shewula are aware of the problems ",uU"'"M

Those with a degree of understanding about tourism

understanding is necessary. As one re5;pon<1lent

assets that they have, they need to be educated'. Other

population focussed on what

to aC(~OlJnmoaate tourism. For example, one woman

taught how to visitors', and another the

how to cater tastes.

Others are self-reflective about the

to their community. For example, IS

from visitors, which could undermine

product and/or be exacerbated by the

of acceptable behaviour, from the point

H'''''',",U'', would therefore need to be addressed to ensure

is socio-culturally sustainable from both "''''''"'''''''''...-,"'''''''''

sustainability of the development.

were many individuals who indicated that

somebody' who had access to skills that

the tourism industry or to undertake pn1"rp1"1rl"1'1Pl

how to achieve the H'V\";C:S:Si:ll

from experts on how to

crafts. Personal

traditional UJ."'UV,;), v.~IJ""vlU,U

investigated.

In

on

as

to maxnrnse the

to

on

workshops and advice

or produce marketable

potential of certain

should also be

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

22

Institution building

The process of institution building has been defmed by Midgeley (1986) as: 'the

creation of procedures for democratic decision-making at the local level and the

involvement of local people in these procedures to the extent that they [come to]

regard them as the normal way of conducting community affairs' (cited in Brandon,

1993: 147). However, as is the case in Shewula, such procedures can be contrary to

the entrenched socio-cultural protocol of indigenous, traditional societies, where

decision-making occurs by means of 'consensus among a group of elders' (King,

1996: 300). Thus, as Steenkamp warns, the use of intervention strategies bv exterior

agents of change who seek the introduction of westem forms of decision-making and

the creation of 'hard' structures, should be tempered by the knowledge that they carry

with them, 'the "hidden cultural baggage" of Westem development interventions that

so often contribute or of such interventions' (Steenkamp,

1999).

Tourism is, however, an imminently westem phenomenon and managing the changes

that are required for its introduction into a traditional society, and securing the

subsequent sustainability of local resources, does require a degree of organizational

capacity. In addition, the case of the Shewula tourism development illustrates the

importance of having a recognised and capable institutional body that can represent

interests of the community when dealing with funding organisations.

Child's remark that 'serious problems can arise from donor funding, undermining the

sustainability of programmes' (Child, 1996:379) is particularly pertinent to the case of

the Shewula development. The drafting of the proposal was characterised by local

participation of a few individuals from Shewula, but the subsequent allocation of

funds for which there is limited local-level capacity to proceed, has created serious

obstaeles to local oarticioation. In particular, the looming deadline attached to the

project, has meant that exterior agents of change, and those community members

initially involved in the project, have been hesitant to conduct a participatory planning

process. The lesson to be learnt supports Child's assertion that 'investment funding ...

should not be rushed ... [but] should only be provided once communities have

developed sufficient capacity .. .' (Child, 1996: 380).

Im;lmIlUJ~n building

1

1

so

1

of institution

procedures for democratic

local people in

Midgeley (1986) as: 'the

CWVJlL nJ .......... uJF. at the local level and the

extent that they [come to]

affairs' (cited in Brandon,

Df()Ce:d.ures can be contrary to

as the normal way of conducting "V'UH1UUJ.CJ

. 147). However, as is the case in

socio-cultural protocol of .I.JHJl.l.F."llVC.!.C>,

'-"""''''''<'"5 occurs by means of 'cOJl1SenSllS ""'UVJ'F.

societies, where

of elders'

300). Thus, as Steenkamp nterventlon strategIes by

of ch,a.m~e who seek the HU1.VU .... v< .• Vll.

'hard' structures, should be

"hidden cultural Da~;;galge'

[to] or result in

decision-making and

that they carry

nrnTlA""lT interventions that

(Steenkamp,

an imminently western pH,,,lH .. "H',,,,,-,,,, and managing the changes

for introduction into a and securing the

sustainability of local resources, of organizational

In addition, the case of the Shewula illustrates the

having a recognised and capable that can represent

community when dealing with .l.\.UJ ...... UJI5

that 'serious problems can arise

grrunm,es (Child, 1996:379) is

relopment .. The drafting of the

~"'~"'."'" undermining the

to case of

local

participation

funds for

obstacles to

project,

initially

from Shewula,

particular,

LlH ..... "'"' ..... VH of

created serious

..... v ........... U.l.'-' attached to the

"'VI"''''''''''' agents of change, those cornmunitj members

tlclpat,ory planning been hesitant to conduct a

learnt supports Child's assertion

should not

developed

.. [but] should only be provided once

.' (Child, 1996: 380).

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

23

On 13 March 1999, the Community Trust was created as a body that would

be responsible for the management and co-ordination of the tourism development

activities, as well as for community conservation efforts in the Shewula Game

Reserve. It represents an attempt by the community to create the necessary

institutional structures referred to above. However, the political tensions evident

prior to the Trust's establishment also highlighted the problems associated

creation of new institutions that resemble 'hard', western structures for decision­

making (Steenkamp, 1999) and which could have the potential to create platforms for

dissension. The appointment of female residents to the Trust would, however, seem to

"''''1',;;:''''''' that the local community perceives the Trust as a body which, in its mandate

to manage tourism, need not be a threat to the socio-political status quo.

The very process whereby the Shewula Community Trust was established reflects an

interesting synthesis of existing socio-cultural practices, of appointment and

delegation of responsibility by the traditional leadership, with a model for democratic

election of trustees by the community. On the other hand, it could also validate

Hasler's comment (Hasler 1995, cited in Ashley and Roe, 1997: 11) that 'grassroots

decision-making may only be possible if it is sanctioned from the top'. This

observation applies equally to the broader development framework within which

community-based ecotourism is located, which is further dealt with the next

section.

Partnership-building and higher-level commitment to local participation

Brandon 0993:147) suggests that a combination of local institutions working with

agents of change from outside the community can ensure the short- and long-ternl

success of projects. The formation of such local-level partnerships is also advocated

by others (Urquhart, 1995; Sproule, 1996). Sproule points out that 'partnerships

should be viewed as an integral part of the design and development of community-

based ecotourism ventures. They arc deemed indispensable for a positive

policy and planning framework' (Sproule, 1996: 249).

The co-operation between members of the Lubombo Conservancy represents one of

the important local-level partnerships that have underpinned the Shewula ecotourism

development. is especially true of the role that local stakeholders have played in

13 March 1999, the

reSpOJI1SlllJle for

as

It represents an

...... 'VU''''L structures referred to

to the Trust's ...,",. .... UJLLOL.U.U''''L ..

23

Trust was as a body that would

co-ordination of the development

conservation Shcwula Game

the community to create necessary

However, the political evident just

highlighted the with the

new institutions

.~.-' ••• ~o (Steenkamp, 1999) and

Uls:sellS1Ion. The ~PIJ~iHu.LH.nn

resemble 'hard', western structures decision-

the for

.lvl.HUl,,, L'_"'LI.'''U·'''' to the seem to

local £'r"-" .... "''I1

to UU,4u .... E)'" tourism, need not

the Trust as a body m mandate

to the socio-political status

Community Trust was an

practices, and

process whereby

synthesis of

aeleg,UlCm of responsibility by HUI.,uHUU,U., leadership, with a democratic

trustees by

comment (Hasler 1

may only

applies equally to

ecotourism is

Partnership-building and higher-level

suggests that a

agents outside the

success The formation

1995; Sproule, 1

should as an integral part of

based ventures. They are

policy and framework' (Sproule, 1

The members

the partnerships

IS true of

other hand, it validate

and Roe, 1997: 11) 'grassroots

it is sanctioned top'. This

development within which

which is further next

to local participation

of local institutions with

can ensure the short-

partnerships is

Sproule points out

and development

indispensable for a

Conservancy one of

the Shewula

stakeholders

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

24

developing the interest of the local leadership in tourism and conservation. By

providing the funding for fact-finding missions to other community-based tourism

initiatives and game auctions, they have made local people aware of the potential for

Shewula to establish an ecotourism venture as well as exposed them to the value of

wildlife for tourism. As an institution, the conservancy provides a useful forum for

improved communication between members, greater strategic planning and the

pooling of resources. The benefits of membership, for the Shewula community and

the Shewula ecotourism development include offers of technical assistance, skills

training, infrastructure and equipment.

Urqhuart (1995: 39) emphasises that to maximise the sustainability of developments

such as ecotourism, 'partnerships should not be restricted to the local level'. In

Swaziland, there are a number of broader strategic planning initiatives that currently

provide a supportive framework for developing partnerships beyond the local level.

Two such initiatives are the above-mentioned TFCA initiative, and a government led

development initiative known as the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative (LSD I).

Both initiatives are characterised by international co-operation between Swaziland,

South Africa and Mozambique, and both have been given high-profile support from

government representatives and heads of state. However, the impact of the initiatives

at grassroots level in north-eastern Swaziland has been characterised by differences in

the extent to which local participation has been encouraged.

Local participation has largely been facilitated by the TFCA initiative which has

played a significant role in forging local-level partnerships, for example by funding

the regional initiative of the Lubombo Conservancy and initiating moves towards

transfrontier cooperation between Shewula and communities living in adjacent areas

in Mozambique. Such cooperation has proven beneficial for the Shewula community

on a number of levels, not least of which has been significant improvements in access

to information regarding the source of the cattle rustling problem.

In contrast, the LSDI has been criticised for the top-down, non-consultative approach

adopted during its development planning process for north-eastern Swaziland. One of

the consequences of this has been a lack of clarity, among the Shewula people

24

developing the interest of the local leadership in tourism and conservation. By

providing the funding for fact-finding missions to other community-based tourism

initiatives and game auctions, they have made local people aware of the potential for

Shewula to establish an ecotourism venture as well as exposed them to the value of

wildlife for tourism. As an institution, the conservancy provides a useful forum for

improved communication between members, greater strategic planning and the

pooling of resources. The benefits of membership, for the Shewula community and

the Shewula ecotourism development include offers of technical assistance, skills

training, infrastructure and equipment.

Urqhuart (1995: 39) emphasises that to maximise the sustainability of developments

such as ecotourism, 'partnerships should not be restricted to the local level'. In

Swaziland, there are a number of broader strategic planning initiatives that currently

provide a supportive framework for developing partnerships beyond the local level.

Two such initiatives are the above-mentioned TFCA initiative, and a government led

development initiative known as the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative (LSDI).

Both initiatives are characterised by international co-operation between Swaziland,

South Africa and Mozambique, and both have been given high-profile support from

government representatives and heads of state. However, the impact of the initiatives

at grassroots level in north-eastern Swaziland has been characterised by differences in

the extent to which local participation has been encouraged.

Local participation has largely been facilitated by the TFCA initiative which has

played a significant role in forging local-level partnerships, for example by funding

the regional initiative of the Lubombo Conservancy and initiating moves towards

transfrontier cooperation between Shewula and communities living in adjacent areas

in Mozambique. Such cooperation has proven beneficial for the Shewula community

on a number of levels, not least of which has been significant improvements in access

to information regarding the source of the cattle rustling problem.

In contrast, the LSDI has been criticised for the top-down, non-consultative approach

adopted during its development planning process for north-eastern Swaziland. One of

the consequences of this has been a lack of clarity, among the Shewula people

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

25

regarding the role of the LSDI, and in particular the extent of its authority over

tourism development in the region. Fears were expressed by some Shewula members

that the Shewula tourism development is occurring without the necessary sanctioning

from this development initiative. This concern is clear in the opinion offered by one

resident who believes that: 'we are abusing the King's authority, going there without

consulting with the LSDI'. This comment also illustrates the need to clarify the roles

and responsibilities of the various parties who are involved in or affected by

community-based ecotourism development (Gaisford, 1997) and the imoortance of

communication between the different role-players (Boeren, 1992).

juxtaposition of the two approaches, and their respective outcomes at the

community level, raises the importance of higher-level commitment to

participation, not only in rhetoric, but also in practice. Without it. bureaucratic

imperatives may begin to dominate the development agenda, and may thwart local

participation even when the conditions of local awareness, support and capacity have

been met.

Conclusion

If ecotourism is to be an appropriate form of development, and not an appropriating

one, local participation in the development process is necessary. This is especially

true when ecotourism is promoted in rural communities adjacent to protected areas,

order to achieve the dual goals of conservation and community development.

However, when tourism in general, and ecotourism in particular, are foreign concepts

to local residents, their capacity to participate in planning a successful ecotourism

development will inevitably be limited.

Giving local people an opportunity to participate in ecotourism development, or

assisting local communities to create opportunities for implementing their own

ecotourism venture, will not automatically result in local participation, nor will it

necessary secure the sustainability of such projects. For local participation to occur,

the local population must be aware of the possibilities [or ecotourism development,

and must support moves to establish such ventures in their own areas. In addition, if

local participation in the planning of an ecotourism development is to be effective, the

local people must have an understanding of what is required, not only from a

regarding

tourism

the

in the

25

particular

were

extent of

by some

authority over

members

that the Shewula tourism development is occurring the u,-"",,-,,,,,,,Ul

from this ""·"'VI"".,r initiative. the opinion nT""",-<,,, by one

""U~<"HJU":' the

comment also the need to LSDI'.

and responsibilities of the parties who are involved

without

the roles

by

of ,""VAHA ... '."« V-DlaSt:u ecotourism

communication ko1·n'~>o .... the

and

tsoe:ren. 1992).

community

participation, not

imperatives

met.

Conclusion

of the two approaches, and

raises the importance of

m

to development

the of local

respective outcomes at the

to local

and thwart local

support and have

ecotourism is to an appropriate form of development, and not an appropriating

v.I' ...... vu in the development process is necessary. This is '"'>JIJ'"'''' ..... one, local

true

to

ecotourism is promoted conununities U.U.luv'~J

to achicve

when IVU.J.J."'.U

dual goals

general,

capacity to

be limited.

residents,

will

an opportunity to

m

venture,

to create opportunities

not automatically result in

secure the sustainability of

population must be aware

I-UL''''U', or

implementing own

participation, nor it

participation to occur,

and must support moves to ventures in own areas. In if

participation in jJH •. UU .. U1F; of an development is to be

must an understanding what is not a

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

26

marketing perspective, but also from an environmental sustainability perspective. A

community that understands the tourism industry and the possible impacts of tourism

IS In a better position to achieve an optimal balance between these two perspectives

than one is not.

Outsiders who intend to use ecotourism to provide people with incentives to

protect their natural resources and empower themselves, must ensure IS

sufficient capacity in the local community to accommodate tourism, before

undertaking to obtain the necessary funding for development on behalf of the

Where such capacity does not exist, empowerment is not only a goal of

ecotourism developmcnt. It is also a pre-requisite.

Agents of change from outside a community can facilitate the empowerment process,

for example by generating local awareness about tourism and providing access to

information. However, their actions require sensitivity to the cultural context

socio-political organisation of the community. The engagement of external parties in

community-based ecotourism needs to be structured in such a way that it does not

undermine the capacity of local people to empower themselves. Thus, while

partnerships can be that they often provide much needed resources for

ecotourism development, potential partners in the development process must be

committed to local participation and empowerment if the development is to be truly

community-based.

The introduction of an essentially western phenomenon into a traditional society in a

manner that is environmentally sensitive and sustainable is fraught with difficulties. It

presents numerous '-'lUUl". as well as opportunities, to both local communities and

those who are involved and SUDDort. the development of community-based

ecotourism.

LU"",'U,,"'''LL'',,- perspective,

,","'LHU L.' .... " • J that

IS a better position to

one that is not.

26

an environmental .:>"",,.<t.u,,,,,,. perspective, A

impacts of tourism

",h'il"''''" these two perspectives

tourism industry and

an optimal balance

Outsiders who intend to use ,",'-"HU'A' to provide incentives to

protect their natural resources and empower the)mE;en must ensure that

capacity

undertaking to

Agents of change

community to tourism,

necessary funding for on behalf

CalJaCUV does not exist, prr1n ... ·\XTPrYnpnt is not only a goal

a pre-requisite.

a community can .. «VLaC<L<V empowerment

IS

for example by

information. However,

local awareness about providing access to

actions require to the cultural context

the community. The enl2;a~~en!1ern of external socio-political

community-based "''''''Yr.11' ...... to be structured a way that it does not

undermine

partnerships can

ccotourism

committed to

community-based.

The introduction

manner that is

presents numerous

those who are

ecotourism.

people to themselves. Thus,

they needed resources

process must

U""'iJUCIVH and empowerment development is to

an essentially western into a traditional a

sensitive is fraught with It

as well as to both local communities

In, and of

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

Bibliography

Acott, T. G. and La Trobe, H. L. (1998) An evaluation of deep ecotourism and

shallow ecotourism. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 6(3), 238-253.

Anon. (1997) The South African Spatial Development Initiatives development

programme: Empowerment Programme. Issue paper No. Towards sustainable

tourism and eco-tourism models. Unpublished report.

Ashley, C. and Garland, E. (1994) Promoting community-based tourism development:

Why, What and Research Discussion Paper, No.4. Namibia: Directorate of

Environmental Affairs.

Ashley, C. and Roe, D. (1998) Community involvement in wildlife tourism: Strengths,

weaknesses and challenges, Wildlife and Development Series No.1l, London:

International Institute for Environment Development.

Barkin, D. (1996) Ecotourism: A tool for sustainable development, in Miller, lA. and

Malek-Zadeh, E. (eds.) (1996) The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts

(pp.63-272). Yale: Yale University.

Bhattacharyya, J. ( 1995) Solidarity and Agency: Rethinking Community

Development. Human Organization, 54(1), 60-68.

Boonzaier, E. (1996) Local responses to conservation in the Richtersveld

Park, South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5,307-314.

Blarney, R.K. (1997) search for an operational definition. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 5(2), 109-130.

Blarney, R.K. and Braithwaite, V.A. (1997) A social values segmentation

potential ecotourism market. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 5(1), 29-45.

Bibliography

Acott, T. G.

shallow ...... v,.vul

programme:

tourism and

Ashley, C. and

Why, What

Environmental

Ashley, C. and

weaknesses

International

D. (1996)

Malek-Zadeh,

(pp.63-272). Yale:

Trobe, H. L. (1

African

Programme.

(1994)

Research

(1998) Community

Wildlife

Environment

(1996) The

University.

rUL.,~tHVft, 54(1),

evaluation

Development

paper No.

report.

No.4.

development,

Equation: lVlt::U.:>l"tnn

development

sustainable

development:

Directorate of

11, London:

lA.and

Impacts

Rethinking Community

responses to vVLJI"",L in the -'-"-H",UL''-'L

South Africa. ,",U1,nnw,,"£' and 14.

R.K. (1997) The an operational definition. Journal of

1

RK. and Braithwaite, V.A. (1997)

potential ecotourism r,-,,,.,"TO" Journal of Sustainable 5(1),

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

28

Boeren, A. (1992) Getting involved: communication for participatory development.

Community Development Journal, 27(3), 259-271.

Bottrin, C.G. and Pearce, D.G. (1995) Ecotourism: towards a key elements approach

to operationalising the concept. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 3(1), 45-54.

Brandon, K.E. and Wells, M. (1992) Planning for People and Parks: Design

Dilemmas. World Development, 20(4), 557-570.

Brandon, K (1993) Basic Steps Toward Encouraging Local Participation in Nature

Tourism Projects. In K. Lindberg and D.E. Hawkins (eds.) (1993) Ecotourism: A

guide for planners and managers (pp.134-151). North Bennington, Vernl0nt: The

Ecotourism Society.

Brandon, K. and Margoulis, R. (1996) The bottom line: getting biodiversity

conservation back into ecotourism. In J.A. Miller and Malek-Zadeh (Eds.) The

Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts (pp.28-38). Yale: Yale University.

Cater, E. (1993) Ecotourism in the Problems for sustainable tourism

development. Tourism Management, 14(2),85-90.

Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (1994) Ecotourism: a sustainable option? London: Wiley.

Ceballos-Lascurain, (1996) Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas: The state of

nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development. UK:

International Union for the Conservation

Child, B. (1996) The practice and principles of community-based wildlife

management in Zimbabwe: the CAMPFIRE programme. Biodiversity

Conservation. 5, 369-398.

Cohen, (1988) Authenticity and Commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research,l 1-386.

A. (1992)

Bottrill, e.G.

to operationalising

28

communication

259-271.

Ecotourism:

of Sustainable

Brandon, K.E. and

Dilemmas. World

M. (1992) Planning

leVelODr.nenz 20(4),557-570.

Brandon, K

Tourism

guide for piaJilll~rS

Ecotourism Society.

Toward .L.'H~'V""'''-

and D.E.

(pp.134-15

R. (1996) The Brandon, K. and

conservation back In J.A. Miller and

uU"'Urt. lVle'USl,trtllt2' the Impacts (pp.28-38). Ecotourism

Cater, E. (1

development.

Cater, and

bCC)tOltnSJm in the third

<TOn-I OYI T 14(2),85-90.

G. (1994) Ecotourism: a

a

development

""'''''HLvHkO approach

45-54.

Parks: Design

Participation in Nature

(1993) Ecotourism:

He:nmngton, Vernl0nt:

getting biodiversity

Malek-Zadeh (Eds.)

Yale University.

sustainable

London:

(1996) Tourism, and protected areas: state

nature-based

International

the world

Conservation

Child, B. (1996) The practice and

Cohen,

Research,l

Zimbabwe: the

Authenticity and '--'VUllJU.V~'J.U.£';''''.'VJ.J.

its development.

tourism. Annals of

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

29

J.G. (1994) Ecotourism: A sustainable option. North American Congress on

Latin America report on the Americas, 28(2), 9.

De Vletter, R. (1993) Swaziland - Mozambique Co-operation on Environment

Ecotourism. Proceedings of a workshop organised by the Swaziland Environmental

Authority, held at Piggs Peak Protea Hotel (Swaziland) on August 23-26, 1993.

De Vletter, R. (1997) 3: Sustainable Natural Resource Management: Sector

Analysis. Unpublished Report.

Drake, S. (1991) Local participation in ecotourism projects. In T. Whelan (Ed.)

Nature Tourism: Managing for the environment (pp.132-163). Washington D.C.:

Island Press.

Fowkes, J. (1994) A proposed model for ecotourism development which both involves

and empowers rural communities. UUU;:)UvU paper.

Gakahu,C. (1993) The Kenyan Experience, In R. de Vletter, Swaziland - Mozambique

Co-operation on Environment and Ecotourism. Proceedings of a workshop organised

Swaziland Environmental Authority, held at Piggs Peak Protea Hotel

(Swaziland) on August 23-26, 1993, (pp.25-31).

Gaisford, W. (1997) Healing the crippled hand: Tourism and community-based

tourism as sustainable forms of use and development in eastern Tsumkwe,

Namibia. Unpublished University of Cape Town.

Gelderbloem, C. van Wilgen, B.W. and Rossouw, N. (1998) Proposed transfrontier

conservation areas: Preliminary Data Sheets and Financial Requirements.

Stellenbosch, South Africa: Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research.

Goodwin, H. and Swingland, I.R. (1996) Ecotourism, biodiversity and local

development. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 275-276.

Goodwin, of Ecotourism, Biodiversity and Conservation. 5,276­

Colvin, J.G. sustainable

Latin America vonn"V'T on the Americas, 28(2), 9.

American Congress on

De Vletter, R. (1993) Swaziland - Mozambique Lo-or,enltlCm on Environment

Ecotourism. prcICe(~<11l1gs a workshop V'"f',UUi"""V

Authority, held at 1993.

De Vletter,

Analysis.

fieiwurce Management: Sector

Drake, S. 991)

Tourism:

Island Press.

participation in ecotourism

for the environment (pp.l

Fowkes, J. (1994) A vrODOSI'::?a ecotourism

cor.nmiumtles Unpublished and empowers

Gakahu,C. (1993) The

Co-operation on

Swaziland

(Swaziland) on August

W. (1997)

as sustainable

Namibia. Unpublished

C. van

areas:

In R. de Vletter,

Ecotourism.

Authority, held at

(pp.25-31).

crippled hand:

use and

UPT"lTU of Cape Town.

Rossouw, N. (1998)

Data Sheets and

T. Whelan (Ed.)

Washington

both involves

Mozambique

a workshop organised

Hotel

community-based

eastern Tsumkwe,

UUllJ.'i!::U transfrontier

IJU.d.""-',HU'J""-'H, South Africa: and Industrial J.""'C'''''U

H. and local

"nl-vl"" .... ' Biodiversity 275-276.

(1996) In Biodiversity and 276-

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

30

291.

Greef, L. (1998) Situational analysis of the Transfrontier Conservation Areas in South

Africa. Unpublished report.

Hall, C.M. (1994a) Ecotourism in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific:

appropriate tourism or a new form of ecological imperialism? E. Cater and G.

Lowman (Eds.) Ecotourism: a sustainable option? (pp.137-158). London: Wiley.

Hall, M.e. (1 994b) Ecotourism or ecological imperialism, Geographical, 67(2), 19.

Harrison, D (1992) Tradition, modernity and tourism in Swaziland. D. Harrison

(Ed.) Tourism and the less developed countries. London: Wiley.

Hyndman, D. (1994) Conservation through self-determination: Promoting the

interdependence of cultural and biological diversity. Human Organization, 53(3),

296-302.

Khan, F. (1996) Living on the margins: Ecotourism and indigenous people in southern

Africa. African Wildlife, 50(3), 22-23.

King, D.A. and Stewart, W.P. (1996) Ecotourism and commodification: protecting

people and places. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5,293-305.

Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D.E. (Eds.) (1993) Ecotourism: A guide for planners and

managers. North Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Lovel, H. and Feuerstein, M. (1992) After the carnival: tourism and community

development. Community Development Journal, 27(4),335-352.

MacGregor, J. (1996) Developing a National Sustainable Tourism Strategy: Going

beyond ecotourism to protect the planet's resources. In J.A. Miller and Malek­

Zadeh (Eds.) The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts (pp.l0-26). Yale:

Yale University.

291.

Greef, (1998) Situational analysis of the Transfrontier Conservation in South

Africa. Unpublished report.

C.M. (1994a) Ecotourism in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific:

appropriate tom1sm or a new form ecological E. and G.

LOWTIlan (Eds.) Ecotourism: a sustainable option? (pp.137-158) .. London: Wiley.

Hall, M.C. (1994b) Ecotourism or ecological imperialism, Geographical, 67(2), 19.

Harrison, D (1992) Tradition, modemity and tourism in Swaziland. D.

Tourism and less developed countries. London: Wiley.

Hyndman, D. (1994) Conservation through self-detennination: Promoting the

interdependence of cultural and biologica1 diversity. Human Organization, 53(3),

296-302.

Khan, F. (1996) Living on margins: Ecotourism and indigenous people in

African Wildl~re, 50(3),

King, D.A. and Stewart, W.P. (1996) Ecotourism and commodification: protecting

people and places. Biodiversity and Conservation, 293-305.

Lindberg,

managers.

and Hawkins, D.E. (Eds.) (1993) Ecotourism: A guide for plamlCrs and

Belmington, Vermont: Ecotourism

H. and M. (1992) After the community

development. Community Development Journal, 27(4),

MacGregor, 1. (1996) Developing a National Sustainable Tourism Strategy: Going

beyond ecotourism to protect the resources. In l.A., Miller Malek­

Zadeh (Eds.) The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the (pp.10-26). Yale:

Yale University.

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

31

Masson, P. (1996) A contribution to Swaziland's Environmental Action Plan on the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, Forest Research Document

20/96, Mbabane: Usutu Pulp Co.Ltd.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996) Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. London:

Sage publications.

McCool, S. F. (1995) Linking tourism, the environment and concepts of

sustainability: Setting the stage. In S.F. McCool and A.E. Watson (Eds.) Linking

tourism, the environment and sustainability: Topical volume ofcompiled papers from

a special session of the annual meeting of the national Recreation and Park

Association, October 1994. Minneapolis: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Mendelsohn, R. (1994) The role of ecotourism in sustainable development. In G.K.

Meffe and C.R. Carroll (Eds.) Principles of Conservation Biology (pp.511-515).

Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.

Miller, J.A. and Malek-Zadeh, (Eds.) (1996) The Ecotourism Equation: lVleU::iUJ

the Impacts. Yale: Yale University.

Munt,1. (1994) Eco-tourism or ego-tourism? Race and Class, 36,49-60.

Pearce, P.L. (1995) From culture shock and culture arrogance to culture exchange:

Ideas towards sustainable socio-cultural tourism. Journal ofSustainable Tourism 3(3),

143-154.

Pleumarom, A. (1995) Ecotourism: Just another greenwash, Earthyear, November,

20-21.

Prime Ministers task force (1997) Report on tourism development: for the economic

and social reform agenda (ESRA). Unpublished report.

31

to Swaziland's Environmental on Masson,

conservation

20/96, Mbabane:

use of biological diversity, Forest Ke:searcn J..Jv',",,,",,,.uv},n

Co.Ltd.

Maxwell, J. A (l

Sage publications.

McCool,

sustainability:

tourism,

a

Association,

Forest 'PY"'<f1r'p HUeJrrWJl

Mendelsohn, (l

Meffe and

Massachusetts: Sinauer

Miller, J.A and H.J."C'VJ:l..-LJ"UV.H,

the Impacts.

research design: An interactive

the environment

McCool and AE. Watson

Topical volume of compiled papers from

of the national Recreation and Park

Minneapolis: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Station.

(1

in sustainable development. In

of Conservation Biology (pp.511 1

The Ecotourism Equation: lVlf~US:UI

Munt,1. (1994) '-"'-'U··U) or eg()-l(IUIl.sm 36,49-60.

Pearce, P.L. (1995)

Ideas towards sustainable .:lV',iV·-V

143-1

ivU.J.i . .l«'VJUJ., A (1995)

Ministers task force (1997)

social reform agenda (ESRA).

on

vUllU,uV arrogance to culture exchange:

of Sustainable Tourism 3(3),

Earthyear, November,

the economic

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

32

Roe, D., Leader-Williams, N. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (1997) Take on photographs,

leave only footprints: the cnviromnental impacts of wildlife tourism. Wildlife and

Development Series, No. 10. London: International Institute for Enviromnent and

Development.

Sandwith, T. (1998) North-eastern Swaziland Conservancy: Identification of key

issues, Interim report 2. Unpublished report.

Sandwith, T. (1999) Towards the formation of a conservancy north-eastern

Swaziland: The Lubombo Conservancy. Unpublished report.

Segar, c., Corcoran, Band Kingwill, J. (1999) A feasibility study of the proposed

tourism development in Shewula, North-Eastern Swaziland. Unpublished report.

Sproule, KW. (1996) Community-based ecotourism development: Identifiying

partners in the process. In lA. Miller and E. Malek-Zadeh (Eds.) The Ecotourism

Equation: Measuring the Impacts (pp. 233-250). Yale: Yale University.

Steenkamp, C. and Maluleke, L. (1999) The Makuleke conservation and tourism

programme: A South African case study of and conservation.

Unpublished paper.

Theron, LP. (1995) Integrating conservation and development:

participation in ecotourism projects. Unpublished Mphil thesis, University of Cape

Town.

Timothy, D.J. (1999) Participatory planning: a view of tourism in Indonesia, Annals

of Tourism Research, 26(2), 371-391.

Torres, M. (1996) Participatory planning for ecotourism development in the Peruvian

Highlands. In J.A. Miller and Malek-Zadeh, (eds.) (1996) The Ecotourism

Equation: Measuring the Impacts. Bulletin Yale School of Forestry and

Environmental Studies, Number 99. Yale: Yale University, pp. 284-294.

32

UHUC<U"",, N. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (1997) on

environmental impacts of wildlife

International

Swaziland

Unpublished report.

(1999) Towards the formation of a

Lubombo Conservancy. Unpublished report.

Band Kingwill, J. (1999) A feasibility

Shewula, North-Eastern

(1996) Community-based ecotourism

Miller and

Impacts (pp.

and Maluleke, L. (1999)

A South African case study

UUJ.''''H',U paper.

LP. (1995) Integrating

in ecotourism projects. Unpublished

D.J. (1999) Participatory p~Ul.llLLL~i5

Research, 26(2), 371

Torres, M. (1996) Participatory pLUL.lliH'i5

Highlands. In J.A.

a

(1

Ecotourism

Cape

Indonesia, Annals

in the Peruvian

The Ecotourism

Equation: Measuring the Iml0acts

Environmental Studies, Number

School of Forestry and

pp. 284-294.

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

33

Trent, D. B. (1996) Making Ecotourism an ally in biodiversity protection. In lA

Miller J.A and E. Malek-Zadeh (Eds.) The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the

Impacts (pp.295-302). Yale: Yale University.

Urquhart, P. (1995) Ecotourism, rural development and local government: a

combination for sustainability? Unpublished Mphil thesis, University of Cape Town.

Wallace, G. (1996) Towards a principled evaluation of ecotourism development. In

J.A Miller lA and E. Malek-Zadeh (Eds.) The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the

Impacts (pp.119-140). Yale: Yale University.

Weaver, B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. Wallingford: CAB

International.

Wheeler, B. (1992) Is progressive tourism appropriate? Tourism Management, 13(1),

104-105.

Whelan, T. (Ed.) (1991) Nature Tourism: Managingfor the environment, Washington

D.C.: Island Press.

Zekeri, A, Wilkinson, K. and Humphrey, C. (1994) Past activeness, solidarity and

local development efforts. Rural Sociology, 59,216-235.

33

Trent, D. B. (1996) Making Ecotourism an ally in biodiversity protection. In lA.

Miller J.A. and E. Malek-Zadeh (Eds.) The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the

Impacts (pp.295-302). Yale: Yale University.

Urquhart, P. (1995) Ecotourism, rural development and local government: a

combination for sustainability? Unpublished Mphil thesis, University of Cape Town.

Wallace, G. (1996) Towards a principled evaluation of ecotourism development. In

J.A. Miller lA. and E. Malek-Zadeh (Eds.) The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the

Impacts (pp.119-140). Yale: Yale University.

Weaver, B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. Wallingford: CAB

InternationaL

Wheeler, B. (1992) Is progressive tourism appropriate? Tourism Management, 13(1),

104-105.

Whelan, T. (Ed.) (1991) Nature Tourism: Managingfor the environment, Washington

D.C.: Island Press.

Zekeri, A., Wilkinson, K. and Humphrey, C. (1994) Past activeness, solidarity and

local development efforts. Rural Sociology, 59,216-235.