This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND SU PPORT FOR THE KGALAGADI TRANSFRONTIER PARK IN BOTSWANA By NAOMI NOMSA MOSWETE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORI DA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 Naomi Nomsa Moswete
3 To the memory of my beloved parents: Mo rwadi and Botha Moatshe, and to my husband, Mokgweetsi for his constant love an d support during my academic journey.
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My study program was made possible by the ge nerous support of many individuals and organizations, which aided and financed this rese arch. I am particularly indebted to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation via Leadership Initiatives for Southern Africa (LISA) without whom I could not have embarked on and completed this projec t. The study is a contribution to the Foundations mission in support of the development of healthy and sustainable rural communities in Southern Africa. I am deeply indebted to the Kellogg Foundation, which played a key role in all stages of my doctoral program from course work to fi eld data collection and analysis. I extend my sincere appreciation to all staff at AED in Botswana (Imel da, Disa, Thandi, Moniemang), and those in Washington DC, for the invaluable support they granted me throughout my academic and spiritual journeys. I would like to express my profound gratitude to Viwe Mtshontshi and Phillip Hesser for the patience, cooperat ion and kind support accorded me throughout my doctoral study at the University of Florida. I also thank the University of Botswana, which played an important role throughout this program. I am indebted to my committee chair, Dr. Brijesh Thapa (my advisor and dissertation chair) for his unwavering support and encouragement during my entire study program. I sincerely thank members of my committee: Dr. Lori PenningtonGray, Dr. Steven Brandt and Dr. Brian Child for their invaluable contributi ons. I would like to thank Dr(s) Mike Sagas, Heather Gibson, Dovie Gamble, Bertha Cato, Ed Osborne, David Aniku, Raban Chanda and Masego Mpotokwane for always being there for me whenever I felt blue. Special thanks go to my husband Mokgweetsi, my children, Temo and Tu mediso for their patience and understanding throughout my studies. I am especially indebted to my friends, Grace and Olekae Thakadu, Bothepha Kgabung, Aaron Majuta, Joseph Mbaiwa, Dzingai & Mi riam Rukuni, Joyce Mupakayiri, Shylock
5 Muyengwa, Maswe Chimbombi and Diana Itum eleng. I cannot thank enough my USA friends, Lori and Mike Russell, Sara and Ed Wood, Pat Spencer, Lynn Williams and members of FPC in Gainesville. Special thanks go to my research assistants in Botswana: Kefilwe Ramokate, Malebogo Mateatsebe, Keabetswe Gaelebale, Caine Youngman and Goitsemodimo Koorutwe for the fabulous job they all did for me during my fieldwork and stay in Kalahari Desert, Botswana. I would like to express my gratitude to individuals who represented the Public Sector in Gaborone and Kgalagadi district for their us eful contributions. I would like to thank the residents of the nine villages: Bokspits, Kang, Khawa, Ncaang, Struizendam, Tshane, Ukhwi and Zutshwa for their willingness to participate in the survey. I graciously thank all the village headmen/chiefs for participating in the study of their unique communities. I also acknowledge the support of my sisters Mapula and Eldah and all my friends especia lly, Ellen Masilonyane who opened her house for me during field work in Kang village. Special thanks go to Natalia Buta and Gary Lacey for their friendship and s upport throughout my doctoral program. I am also thankful to my colleagues Sung-Jin, Ting-Bing, Pulung, Heather Bell Pete Parker, Nancy Gullic, Donna Walker for their friendship and support. Above all, I am thankful to the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management fo r all the support I got during my doctoral program.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................10LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................12LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 13ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............15 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 17Background and Study Context ..............................................................................................21Statement of Problem .......................................................................................................... ...26Theoretical Foundation ........................................................................................................ ...29Significance of Study ..............................................................................................................35Pilot Study ..............................................................................................................................37Purpose of Study .....................................................................................................................39Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................... .39Perception about CBE .....................................................................................................40Conservation Attitudes .................................................................................................... 41Community Concern .......................................................................................................43Participation (Use Levels) ...............................................................................................44Socio-Demographics ....................................................................................................... 45Distance/Proximity .......................................................................................................... 47Hypotheses (Residents) ........................................................................................................ ..49Support for community-based ecotourism development ................................................. 49Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park ......................................................................... 49Interview Questions (Public Sector) ....................................................................................... 50Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................512 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................55Tourism in Botswana ........................................................................................................... ...55Visitors to Protected Areas in Botswana ................................................................................57Tourism Related Policies and Strategies ................................................................................ 59Community-Based Natural Resources Management ..............................................................61Ecotourism .................................................................................................................... ..........64Community-Based Ecotourism ...............................................................................................68Success Stories of CBE ..........................................................................................................71Community-Based Project in the Ta National Park, Cte DVoire (Africa) ................. 71Village Tourism Program, Senegal (Africa) ................................................................... 72
7 Babe National Park, Vietnam (Asia) ............................................................................... 72Sankuyo Community Development Trust, Ngamiland, Botswana (Africa) .................... 72Stakeholder Participation ..................................................................................................... ...73Stakeholder Empowerment ..................................................................................................... 78Protected Area Management ...................................................................................................82Resident Attitudes ...................................................................................................................85Residents Attitudes toward Tourism .............................................................................. 85Residents Attitudes toward Protected areas (PAs) ......................................................... 87Protected Areas in Botswana .................................................................................................. 91Transfrontier/Transboundary Parks ........................................................................................923 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... ......98Study Site ................................................................................................................................98Environmental Features ........................................................................................................ ..99Climate ....................................................................................................................... .....99Topography, Geology, Soils and Hydrology .................................................................100Flora ......................................................................................................................... ......100Fauna ......................................................................................................................... ....101District Background .......................................................................................................102Selected Communities: Background ..................................................................................... 104Study Design .........................................................................................................................106Data Collection .....................................................................................................................109Selection of Participants .......................................................................................................110Residents: Quantitative .................................................................................................. 110Operationalization of Variables .....................................................................................112Knowledge about ecotourism .................................................................................113Perceptions about community-based ecotourism ................................................... 113Conservation attitudes ............................................................................................114Community concern ...............................................................................................114Participation (use levels) ........................................................................................ 114Support for KTP ..................................................................................................... 114Support for community-based ecotourism ............................................................. 115Socio-demographic ................................................................................................. 115Distance/proximity ................................................................................................. 115Validity and Reliability ...................................................................................................... ...115Public Sector: Qualitative .....................................................................................................116Data Treatment .....................................................................................................................118Residents ..................................................................................................................... ...118Public Sector ..................................................................................................................120Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................................ ...122Support for Community-Based Ecotourism Development ............................................ 122Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park ....................................................................... 1224 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ......138Profile of Residents .......................................................................................................... .....138
8 Frequencies of Variables: Residents ..................................................................................... 140Ecotourism Knowledge ................................................................................................. 140Perceptions about Community-Based Ecotourism ........................................................141Conservation Attitudes .................................................................................................. 141Community Concern .....................................................................................................143Participation (Use Levels) .............................................................................................144Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park ....................................................................... 144Support for Community-Based Ecotourism Development ............................................ 145Results of Hypotheses Testing ..............................................................................................146Residents ..................................................................................................................... ...146Support for community-based ecotourism development ....................................... 147Summary of results for conceptual model 1 ...........................................................151Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park ............................................................... 152Summary of results for conceptual model 2 ...........................................................156Public Sector ..................................................................................................................157Community ecotourism development .................................................................... 157Knowledge about transfrontier protected area .......................................................162Management issues ................................................................................................ 165Development challenges ........................................................................................ 172Community integration ..........................................................................................176Awareness of CBNRM and Conservation ............................................................................ 182Summary of Results: Public Sector ...................................................................................... 1835 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... ...196Resident Perspectives ...........................................................................................................197Support for Community-Based Ecotourism Development ............................................ 197Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park ....................................................................... 204Public Sector Perspectives ....................................................................................................212Cultural heritage: ...........................................................................................................225Stakeholder Perspectives: Integration ................................................................................... 226Conclusion and Recommendation ........................................................................................ 235Conclusion .................................................................................................................... .235Policy Recommendations ..............................................................................................240Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... .241Future Work ..........................................................................................................................242APPENDIX A KGALAGADI DISTRICT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS ................................... 245B KHAWA LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (KD 15) ......................................... 246C RESIDENT SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............................................................................... 247D PUBLIC SECTOR INTERvIEW GUIDE ............................................................................ 251E INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL .......................................................... 252
9 F RESEARCH PERMIT, BOTSWANA .................................................................................254LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................256BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................291
10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Visitors at Protected Areas in Botswana ............................................................................ 952-2 Potential benefits of pr otected area-based tourism ............................................................ 952-3 Protected Areas in Botswana ............................................................................................. 963-1 Transfrontier Conservation Parks in Southern Africa ..................................................... 1253-2 Population densities and distribution (1981 2001) ....................................................... 1253-3 Ecotourism resources in Kgalagadi area .......................................................................... 1263-4 Attractions in the gr eater Kalahari region ........................................................................ 1273-5 Data collection for local resi dents (October 2008 January 2009) ................................. 1283-6 Data collection for the public sector ................................................................................1293-7 Sampling for local residents pe r village, household and population ............................... 1303-8 Operationalization of variables: survey questions and measurements ............................1313-9 Sampling frame: res pondents and instruments ................................................................ 1313-10 Public Sector stakeholder interview questions ................................................................1323-11 Reliability analysis for respondents pe rceptions about commun ity-based ecotourism development ................................................................................................................... ..1323-12 Reliability analysis for respondent s conservation attitudes to KTP ............................... 1343-13 Reliability analysis for le vel of concern about tourism ................................................... 1353-14 Reliability analysis for respondents support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park ............... 1353-15 Reliability analysis for respondents support for community-based ecotourism development ................................................................................................................... ..1353-16 Constructs and reliabilities ............................................................................................. ..1363-17 Correlation matrixes of constructs indices ....................................................................... 1363-18 Visitor lodging fac ilities and activities ............................................................................ 1374-1 Socio-demographic char acteristics of residents ...............................................................185
11 4-2 Frequency distributions (percentages) for residents knowledge of ecotourism activities in the area. ....................................................................................................... .1874-3 Frequency distributions (percentages) for community concern about tourism ...............1874-4 Purpose for residents visit to Kgalag adi Transfrontier Park (Participation) .................. 1884-5 Frequency distributions (percentage ) for conservation attitudes to KTP ........................ 1894-6 Frequency distributions (percentage) for residents perceptions about communitybased ecotourism development (CBE) ............................................................................. 1904-7 Frequency distributions (p ercentage) for residents suppor t for conservation of KTP ..... 1914-8 Residents knowledge about creati on of KTP as a Tran sfrontier Park ............................ 1914-9 Frequency distributions (percentages) of residents support CBE development .............. 1914-10 Correlations: Residents support for CBE development .................................................. 1924-11 Standard Multiple linear regression analysis for predicting support for communitybased ecotourism development. ....................................................................................... 1924-12 Correlations: Residents support fo r KTP as a Transfrontier Park .................................. 1934-13 Standard Multiple regression analysis for predicting support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. ...........................................................................................................1934-14 Profile of representatives (m embers) of the Public Sector .............................................. 1954-15 Thematic analysis for interview data ............................................................................... 195
12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Support for community-based ecotourism development (CBE) ........................................ 531-2 Support for Kgalagadi Transfrontie r as a Transfrontier Park (KTP) ................................. 531-3.Map showing southwestern Botswana and Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park ........................ 543-1 Designated Wildlife Management Areas in Southwest Botswana (GOB, 2001) ............1244-1 Factors that predict resi dents support for Community -based ecotourism (CBE). .......... 1944-2 Factors that predict reside nts support for Kgalagadi Tras nfrontier Park (KTP). ......... 1945-1 Tourist campsite inside KTP (Botswana side) ................................................................. 2435-2 Handicraft of the San/Bushmen made from ostrich eggshells collected from Farms (Displayed in a crafts hop, Ghantsi village). ..................................................................... 2435-3 Cultural landscape and dwelling remain s at Roopuits, inside KTP (Botswana) ............. 2445-4 Trail Blazers San/Basarwa cultural camp near Ghanzi. ................................................... 244
13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BTDP Botswana Tourism Development Programme CBNRM Community Based Natu ral Resources Management CBO Community Based Organization CHA Controlled Hunting Area CKGR Central Kgalagadi Game Reserve CSIR Council for Scientific and Industria l Research CSO Central Statistic Office DDP District Development Plan DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DOT Department of Tourism DWNP Department of Wildlife and National Parks GNP Gemsbok National Park GOSA Government of South Australia IUCN World Conservation Union LACOM Local Advisory Committee KDC Kgalagadi District Council KGNP Kalahari Gemsbok National Park KKDT Khawa Kopanelo Development Trust KTP Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park MNRC Mantswe Natural Resources Consultants MFDP Ministry of Finance and Development Planning MLG Ministry of Local Government MLP Ministry of Lands and Planning MWET Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism
14 NCSA National Conservation Strategy Agency NDP National Development Plan NGO Non Governmental Organization NKXT Nqwaa Khobee Xeya Trust RADP Remote Area Development Programme TBNRM Transboundary Natural Resources Management TLT Thusanyo Lefatsheng Trust UNESCO United Nations Education Scie ntific and Cultural Organization WMA Wildlife Management Area WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council
15 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPO RT FOR KGALAGADI TRANSFRONTIER PARK IN BOTSWANA By Naomi Moswete December 2009 Chair: Brijesh Thapa Major: Health and Human Performance Ecotourism is renowned for its potential to provide benefits to local communities while sustaining the natural and cultura l resources upon which it depends. Transfrontier protected area resource conservation has gained momentum as a vehicle for achieving a wide range of goals, including but not limited to improved co-management and benefits to adjacent local communities. Research shows that achieving th e goals of stakeholder support for communitybased ecotourism and the conservation of Tran sboundary Parks requires an understanding of stakeholders perceptions and attitudes. The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that influence stakeholders support for commun ity-based ecotourism development and for conservation of KTP (Kgalagadi Tr ansfrontier Park) as a Transfr ontier area. Stakeholder theory was used as a foundation for this mixed met hods study. Two stakeholder groups, residents and the public sector were identifie d. Over 700 surveys were administered to local communities adjacent to KTP, while 13 face-to-face in -depth interviews were conducted among representatives from the public sector stakeholder group. Results revealed factors that were likely to influence residents support for CBE (Community-Based Ecotourism) development as well as predictors of support for KTP as a Tran sfrontier Park. Stakeholder groups generally held
16 positive perceptions about ecotourism and expressed strong support for community-based ecotourism development in the Kalahari region. Stakeholders also demonstrated proconservation behavior and strong support for KTP as a Transboundary area. However, interviews with the local public sector officials uncovere d differences in understanding of the issues surrounding KTP. Thus, the theoretical contribu tion of this study involves the integration of ideas and opinions from two different stakeholder gr oups in the specific case of transboundary developments. The findings demonstrated the value of stakeholder theory in soliciting perceptions from two differ ent interested groups in a politically sensitive case. Improved collaboration, communica tion, transparency and account ability with regards to KTP as a shared resource are highly recommended. Capacity building and formal training among residents and local leaders is ne eded in order to increase their understanding of management of shared resources, and to enable them to initiate and run CBE ventures.
17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Community-based eco tourism (CBE1) has been largely promoted in rural areas as a tool for conservation and economic enhancement in th e developing world (Avila Foucat, 2002; Cater, 1997; Khan, 1997; Kiss, 2004; Parker & Khare, 2005; Spenceley, 2008; Stronza, 2007; Timothy, 1999; Woodwood, 1997). CBE implies that a community is caring for its natural resources in order to gain income through tourism, and is using that income to better th e lives of its people; it involves conservation, business en terprises, and community deve lopment (Sproule & Subandi, 1998, p. 215). This concept also refers to small scale tourism enterprise s which are community owned and managed with minimal negative imp acts and maximum economic benefits for local people and their natural and cultu ral environments. CBE enterprises which operate in the natural environment are widely regarded as key drivers for job growth, wealth creation, and economic empowerment, particularly in impoverished rural areas in most developing nations. The activities occur mostly in and around national parks a nd other protected areas (Boyd & Timothy, 2001). They also provide positive experiences to vis itors (Ashley & Elliot, 2003; Avila Foucat, 2002; Campbell, 1999; Cock & Pfueller, 2000; Garrod, 2003; Murphy, 1981; Weaver, 2001). CBE is popular within the communities, prin cipally due to the high degree of local involvement in planning and decision-making (Cusack & Dixon, 2006; Khan, 1997; Nyaupane & Thapa, 2004; Ormsby & Mannie, 2006; Timothy, 1999) Since CBE is locally driven, there is a strong tendency to protect the natural and cult ural environments, while generating economic benefits for local people (Brennan & Allen, 2001; Honey, 1999; Khan, 1997; Garrod, 2003; Puppim de Oleveira, 2002). The income from CBE activities provides a strong incentive for 1 Is the propest of linking conservation and local live lihoods, preserving biodiversity whilst simulteneously reducing rural poverty, and of achieving both objectives on a sustainable (self-financing) basis (Kiss, 2004,p. 232)
18 conservation by making traditional resource mana gement more sustainable (Ashley & Elliot, 2003; Bauer, 2003; Campbell, 1999; Cater, 193; 1997; Ross & Wall, 1999; Puppim de Oliveira, 2002). CBE projects have the potential to gene rate local income and to create employment opportunities for rural people (Ashley & Garland, 1994; Ashley & Jones, 2001; Avila Foucat, 2002; Fennell, 2001: 2003; Kibic ho, 2003; Lepp, 2004; Puppim de Olev eira, 2002) as well as to protect the environment (Honey, 1999; Weaver, 2001) CBE development is considered as a new option for rural development in developing countr ies, most notably in Africa and Latin America (Ashley & Roe, 2002; Avila Foucat, 2002, Parker & Khare, 2005; Relly, 2008; Rozemeijer, 2000; 2008; Spenceley, 2008), yet th ere are few examples of fina ncially sustainable CBE in Africa (Mbaiwa, 2008; Ormsby & Mannie, 2006; Thakadu, Mangadi, Bernard et al., 2006). To be beneficial at the community level, CBE development strategy must ensure active local involvement in all ecotourism operati ons (Cater, 1997; Garrod, 2003; Hitchcock, 1991; Kiss, 2004; Murphy, 1985; Stronza, 2007; Timothy, 1999). Based on the CBE concept, local communities operate most tourism activities, such as eco-tours, guidi ng, craft sales, food service, accommodations, and interpretation of village history and culture (Burns & Barrie, 2005). In many instances, CBE has proved to have more adva ntages than conventional tourism, including improved resource conservation by villagers, fair distribution of tourism revenue, economic development of rural areas, and diversificati on of the region and nation (Avila Foucat, 2002; Kiss, 2004; Ashley, Boyd & Goodwin, 2000; Shack leton, Campbell, Wollenberg et al., 2002; Sharpley & Telfer, 2002). CBE has also attracted the attention of many international conservation organizations and private foundations because it connects conservation to loca l livelihoods (Brennan & Allen, 2001; Kiss, 2004; Shackleton et al ., 2002), preserves natural and cu ltural resources (Millar, 2006;
19 McKercher & Du Cros, 2002; Pete r, 2003; Weaver, 2001), and attemp ts to alleviate rural poverty (Ashley, 2000; Ashley & Elli ot, 2003; Blackden & Wodon, 2006; Cock & Fueller, 2000; Shackleton et al., 2002). Thus, to be a truly bene ficial strategy CBE must be dedicated to improving the quality of life of people, while also protecting the natural and cultural environment (Fennel, 1999; 2003; Parker & Khare, 2005; Tosun, 2006). Many scholars have analyzed the economic, so cio-cultural and environmental effects of community-based ecotourism, pa rticularly in the developing world (Ashley & Roe, 2002; Hitchcock, 1997; Khan, 1997; Lai & Nepal, 2006; Lepp, 2004; 2007; Nyaupane, Morais & Dowler, 2006; Opperman & Chon, 1997; Wunder, 2000) Others have focused on ecotourism impacts, including resident attitudes, and examined socio-economic, environmental, and political effects on the host communities and the loca l environment (Akama, 1996; Cater, 1997; 1997; Honey, 1999; Holden, 2008; Kiss, 2004; Keitu metse, 2008; Nyaupane & Thapa, 2004; 2006; Weaver, 2001). Overall, research in the developing worl d has largely focused on protected areas (Alexander, 2000; Allendorf, 2007; Allendor f, Smith, & Anderson, 2007; Archabald & Naughton-Trevis, 2001; Baral & Heinen, 2007; Ba uer, 2003; Brandon, 2007; Durrant & Durrant, 2008; Gadd, 2005; Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Infield & Namara, 2001; Jim & Xu, 2002; Lai & Nepal, 2006; Lepp, 2004; Meskell, 2005; Mord i, 1987; Naughton-Trevis 1997; Nyaupane & Thapa, 2004; Parker & Khare, 2005; Parry & Cam pbell, 1992; Sekhar, 2003; Spiteri & Nepal, 2008; Weladji, Moe & Vedeld, 2003). Some of the highlights in findings indicate that local communities adjacent to Park boundaries have ne gative attitudes towards wild animals and/or towards the protected area, due to lack of access to resour ces (Bauer, 2003; Brandon, 2007; Gadd, 2005; Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Lepp, 2004; Meskell, 2005; Parry & Campbell, 1992).
20 However, some resident communities have posit ive attitudes about tourism and conservation, due to economic benefits derived from these activities (Lepp, 2004; 2008; Sekhar, 2003, Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). Generally, there is a paucity of research with re spect to CBE and its potential importance as a sustainable livelihood option fo r rural communities in the developing world (Himberg, 2006; Himoonde, 2007; Keitumetse, 2008; Nelson, 2004; Nyaupane & Thapa, 2004; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Woodwood, 1997). In the developing world, rural communities are experiencing hard ships and have had difficulty surviving with minimal resources, due to pressures of faili ng agricultural production and population growth (Phuthego & Chanda 2004; Emerton, 2001; GOB, 2000; Hulme & Murphree, 2001; Spenceley, 2008; Totolo, 1998). In response, these rural communities have resorted to new ventures for their livelihood, su ch as community-based tourism or CBE (Ashley & Lahiff, 2001; Barnes, 2008; Kepe et al., 2001; Nelson, 2004; Massyn & Swan, 2002; Relly, 2008; Simpson, 2008). CBE has been identified as an important strategy for regional development which leads to improvements in pr ovincial or rural economic growth, employment and enhanced opportunities for indigenous people, improved infrastructure and connections, and understanding between rural a nd urban areas (Ashley & Roe, 2003; Ashley & Elliot, 2003; Brenna & Allen, 2001; Dei, 2000; Fennell, 2001; Khan, 1997). However, ecotourism is not a panacea for all socio-economic challenges faced by local communities, but should be seen as a tool for de velopment and not as an end in itself (Tao & Wall, 2008, p.1). In addition, it is important fo r local communities to evaluate their own resources in order to identify the need to adopt tourism deve lopment within their livelihood system (Akama, 1996; Mbaiwa, 2008; Moswete et al., 2009a; Tao & Wall, 2008). Collectively, CBE plays an important role for local communities in the developing world, including Botswana,
21 as there are multiple opportunitie s for economic development and conservation of cultural and natural resources. Background and Study Context In the con text of Botswana, CBE and/or community-based tourism initiatives have been recognized as a major strategy2 generating additional income and employment, especially for rural communities (BTDP, 2000; GOB, 2005; NDP 8; Sebele, 2009). Rural communities have been encouraged to adopt this strategy as a ne w tool for sustainable community development to alleviate poverty and improve living standards (GOB, 1997). Trad itional livelihood strategies persist in most rural communities, and vary be tween livestock farming, crop farming, collection and utilization of veldt resources, and governme nt welfare programs (Arntzen, 2003; Botswana Review, 2005; GOB, 2001; Phuthego & Chanda, 2004). Community-based and cultural heritage tourism ventures have been advocated and en couraged by the government as possible avenues for diversification, especially in rural areas (BTDP, 2000; GOB, 2001; Keitumetse, 2008; Mbaiwa, 2005; Moswete et al., 2009b; Rich ards, 2007; Robinson, 2001; Rozemeijer, 2000). Although this strategy has been recommended for sustainable rural development, challenges include striking a balance between the natural and cultural environmen t (BTDP, 2003; Mbaiwa, 2005; Mbaiwa et al., 2007; Shackley, 1998), an d integrating conservation and tourism development projects (Kiss, 1990; 2004; Mbaiwa 2008; Moswete et al., 2009a; Toteng, Mbaiwa & Moswete, 2006). In addition, lack of understand ing of the relationship between conservation and ecotourism development by the local people is a recurring theme (Moswete et al., 2009b; Parker & Khare, 2005; Sibanda & Omwega, 1996; Walpole, 2001). 2 National Ecotourism Strategy of 2003
22 However, in Botswana, CBE and culture-based tourism initiatives are strongly connected to Community-Based Natural Resources Mana gement (CBNRM). Under the CBNRM program, rural or local communities are encouraged and re quired to form community-based organizations (CBOs), from which they can collectively colla borate to establish community owned tourismrelated enterprises or projects (Ashley & J ones, 2005; GOB, 2000; 2007) The CBNRM program initiative was designed to alleviate poverty and advance conservation by strengthening rural economies and empowering communities to manage their resources for long term social, economic, and ecological benefits (GOB, 2007). Additional goals included the opportunity for local communities to benefit directly and equita bly from natural resource management, to be granted the rights to utilize resources, and to determine the mode of use and distribution of benefits (Adam & Hutton, 2007; Armitage 2005; Arntzen et al., 2003; GOB, 2005). Since its adoption in Botswana, CBNRM, thr ough the formation and use of CommunityBased Organizations (CBO) has become an important tool for rural communities. For example, in the Okavango region of Botswana, tourism has become an important benchmark for some communities, especially in the Ngamiland district. Mbaiwa (2008) states, the case of Khwai, Mababe and Sankoyo suggests that tourism de velopment through community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) is an effectiv e tool to achieve conservation and improved livelihoods (p.151). Community owned and operated projects us ually do contribute to infrastructural development and the provision of social services in the rural areas (Arntzen et al., 2003; Ashley & Elliot, 2003; Mbaiwa, 2003). However, some studies (Arntzen et al., 2003; Flyman, 2001; Moswete et al., 2009a; MLG, 1999) have highlighted a lack of meaningful participation and involvement of the local people in tourism occurr ing in their areas, high er monetary benefits
23 accrued to private safari operators (Mbaiw a, 2003; Maveneke, 2003; Swatuk, 2005; Taylor, 2007), and lack of community capacity to manage tourism-related projects or businesses (Bond, 2001; Cocks & Grundy, 2006; Maveneke, 2003; Taylor 2007). Also, over the years, only a limited number of stakeholders have been involved in the planning, decision making and management processes for wildlife-related touris m and ecotourism that occurs in protected areas (Chengeta, Jamare, & Chishakwe, 2003; GOB 2005; Mulale, 2005). The success of CBE initiatives are largely dependent on the full invol vement and meaningful participation of all stakeholder groups, including community or village groups, local businesses, tour operators and visitors, many of whom have been ignored in the past (Campbell, 1999; Garrod, 2003; Shackley, 1998; Timothy, 1999). In Botswana, tourism is largely wildlife and wilderness-based, and has generally been one of the largest generators of income and employment, especi ally in rural areas (Botswana Review, 2005; GOB, 2001; WTTC, 2007) Wildlife-based tourism is al so considered as the most appealing form of land use in the country (Bar nes, 2001a; Campbell, 1973; Child, 1970; Growe, 1995; NCSA, 2002; LANDflow solutions, 1999; 2005; Rozemeijer, 2009; Selby, 1991; Twyman, 2001). The tourism industry is still at an early stage of development, and given its enclave development, its overall potential for further growth throughout the country has yet to be maximized. Wildlife-based tourism is largely co ncentrated in the nor thwestern and eastern districts, where it has become the major source of income and employment for local indigenous communities. Given the rapid growth in tourism, as well as reliance on a single type of tourism resource, negative environmental and socio-econ omic impacts have su rfaced (Barnes, 2001a; Mbaiwa, 2003, Moswete & Mavondo, 2003; Mpotokwane, 1991), including tourist overcrowding, especially at the Chobe waterfront and some areas of the Okavango Delta during
24 the high water season. Also, low flying safari airc raft in the Delta and Kasane village have caused local resentment of tour ists (Bell, 1991; Mbaiwa, 2003; Mpotokwane, 1991). In addition, the tourism industry in and around the Okavango De lta is controlled by foreign companies with little meaningful local participation (M baiwa, 2003; Moswet e et al., 2009a). The protected areas in the northern part of the country are reaching maximum capacity, and alternative attractions are needed to re duce pressure on existing facilities (BTDP, 1998; Magole & Gojamang, 2005). With specific referen ce to tourism development, the BTDP (2003) has recommended diversifying wildlife-based tourism from northern Botswana to other areas, in order to ease the impact on the environment of the Okavango Delta (BTDP, 1999; 2001). Given the magnitude and economic importance of tourism in northern Botswana, the need for diversification of the industrys products (e.g., culture-based resources) and geographical regions is crucial to maintain viability and sustaine d growth. Therefore, the Kgalagadi region of southwestern Botswana offers potential opportunities, as well as challenges, for diversification, increase in local involvement, and economic de velopment (Moswete, Thapa & Lacey, 2009). Southwest Kgalagadi Region: The southwest Kgalagadi regi on (see Figure 1-1) is known for its unique, large and relatively pristine ecosystem, with large-scale migratory routes for wild ungulates and predatory mammalian carnivores (SANP & DWNP 1997). The region has unique aesthetic beauty, with harsh semi-arid environmen t and rare natural features, such as salt pans, fossil river valleys, and undulating and crisscrossing sand dunes and ridges (Roodt, 2008). In addition, the Kgalagadi region is richly endowed with natural and cultural heritage resources (GOB, 2001; Chanda, Totolo, Akanyang et al., 2005; Roodt, 2008). Major tourism resources and attractions include unspoiled wilderness, varied and plentiful wildlife, and handicrafts of the San/Bushmen (Moswete, 2007; Mosw ete et al., 2009b; Roodt, 2008). Some current utilization
25 includes parks and reserves, such as the greate r Central Kgalagadi Game Reserve (the largest reserve in Botswana), Kutse Game Reserve (K GR), and Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) (GOB, 2001). The KTP is the first Transboundary protecte d area to be created in southern Africa (Mayoral-Phillips, 2002) and boa sts two distinctive ecosystems: southwestern duneveld with unique semi-desert vegetation, and the northeaster n Kalahari plains thornveld (SANP & DWNP, 1997). The parks unique ecosystem and its important, rare and endangered animal and plant species attract local, regional and internationa l visitors (GOB, 2001; Roodt, 2008). Other tourist attractions within the greater Kalahari region include the Jwan a Game Reserve, Ghanzi Trail Blazers (the San/Basarwa cultural village a nd open-air museum), the DKar Museum and cultural heritage site, as well as ostrich and game farms and safari lodges (GOB, 2001; Roodt, 2008). In rural western Botswana, District C ouncils and other government departments constitute the most important formal sources of employment (Chanda & Magole, 2001). The economy is based on rearing cattle for meat production (District Development Plan 5, 20032007), as well as for other cultural and trad itional activities such as weddings, dowries, traditional ceremonies and rituals. Approximately nine ty percent of export livestock is sent to the Botswana Meat Commission (BMC). Rain-fed agriculture has been declining (MFDP, 2002), and rural agricultural activities tend to be dominated by elderly people, because the youth migrate to urban centers for employment in non-agricultural sectors (MFDP, 2002). Hunting, gathering, livestock farming, and skin tanning are all directly linked to the handicrafts market (Johnson, 1996; MLG, 2003), which collectivel y provides a livelihood to various local communities (Chanda & Magole, 2001; Johnson, 1996; Chanda et al., 2005).
26 Overall, livestock activities have led to over-exploitation of grazing which has caused detrimental effects on the veldt resource base and has also displaced wildlife populations (Moleele & Maina, 2004; ), especially in key livestoc k areas (Kgabung, 1999). However, wildlife uses have an economic advantage beca use commercial livestoc k farming and production are capital intensive and require access to exte rnal markets (Arntzen, 2003; Ashley & Elliot, 2003; Barnes, 1995). Poverty has been identified as one of the major development problems that hinder rural growth (Ditlhong, 1997; Letamo & Totolo, 2003), as 71% of residents have been estimated to be living in poverty, while 59% are described as very poor (Ditlhong, 1997; Ministry of Local Government (MLG), 2003). The high proporti on of people living below poverty level, particularly in the western di stricts of Ghanzi and Kgalagad i (Ditlhong, 1997; Chanda & Magole, 2001) is mainly due to unfavorable agricultural conditions, lack of economic opportunities, illiteracy and long distances from major ur ban centers (Phuthego & Chanda, 2004; Ditlhong, 1997; GOB, 2001). It has been recommended that labor-based public work schemes should be made a permanent feature of the regions rura l areas to alleviate poverty (Ditlhong, 1997). Statement of Problem The developm ent of tourism can have numerous benefits in the Kgalagadi region, but it also presents challenges to local communities, resource managers, planners, developers and the environment. The communities of the Kgalagadi re gion are in need of economic advancement, as the poor and marginalized people in this regi on are hampered by a lack of formal training, inadequate education, weak institutions and poor leadership (Arntzen, 2003; Ditlhong, 1997; Phuthego & Chanda, 2004; Totolo & Chanda, 2001) The dependence on livestock farming and rangeland resources has also led to severe land degradation (MLG, 2005; Moleele & Maina, 2003; Perkins & Ringrose, 1996; Totolo, 1998), conf licts over natural re source use (Chanda et
27 al., 2002; Totolo & Toteng, 1998), and increased inci dence of poverty in the Kgalagadi district (Arntzen, 2001; Ditlhong, 1997; KDC, 1997). According to Chanda & Totolo (2001) and Moleele & Maina (2003), rangelands have sup ported a diversity of wildlife and livelihood activities such as agro-pastoralism, hunting a nd gathering in Kgalagadi. Currently, livestock production in the Kgalagadi benefits only a sma ll percentage of the population (Arntzen, 2001; LAND flow Solutions, 1999; MLG, 2005; Phut hego & Chanda, 2004; Totolo & Chanda, 2001), and other studies have found that rangelands ar e no longer the major source of livelihood for the greater part of the Kgalagadi i nhabitants (Arntzen 2003; Chanda et al., 2002; Moleele & Maina, 2003; Moswete et al., 2009b). Gene rally, livelihoods are threaten ed by overgrazing of the range (Moleele & Maina, 2003; Perkins & Ringrose, 1996) and overexpl oitation of veldt resources, especially in areas that surround the villag es and settlements (Atlhopheng & Totolo, 1998; Kgabung, 1999; Perkins & Ringrose, 1996; Totolo & Chanda, 2001; Velimpini & Perkins, 2008). Veldt product depletion, includ ing grapple plant (sengaparile ), has been reported in Kgalagadi villages including Tsabong, Kokot sha, Ngwatle, and Monong (KDC, 1997; Moleele & Maina, 2003; Totolo & Chanda 2001; Velimpini & Perkins, 2008) Collectively, there exists a dire need for an alternative means of liveli hood, in which communities could use rangeland in a sustainable manner to benefit th emselves and the environment. Nationwide, tourism contribu tes to the Gross Domestic Pr oduct (GDP), employment and foreign exchange to an extent greater than trad itional activities, such as agriculture (Botswana Review, 2005; BTDP, 1998; WTTC 2007), except in the southwest region where available tourism resources are underutilized (CSIR, 2003; Chanda et al., 2005; Moswete et al., 2009b). However, protected areas in the southwest regio n, of the country have begun to attract increasing numbers of international a nd local tourists (BTDP, 1999; DOT, 2007; DWNP, 1998; WTTC,
28 2007). The number of visitors to Kgalagadi parks has increased considerably during the last decade. More than 7,000 tourists recorded for the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) in 2005 (DOT, 2006). In general, tourism development in the sout hwestern region is sluggish in comparison to the northern and eastern regi ons. Some known key challenges to tourism advancement in the area include low awareness of tourism (Moswete et al., 2009b), poor roads to wildlife attractions (Johnson, 1996; Roodt, 2008), inadequate marketing of the region (BTDP, 1998; Roodt, 2008), unreliable wate r supplies in the remote se ttlements (Chanda & Magole, 2001; Chanda et al., 2005), inadequate key infrastructure for tourism (Johnson, 1996; LANDflow solutions, 1999; 2005; MLG, 2005), high illiteracy rates especially among the indigenous groups (MLG, 2003; Chanda & Magole, 2001), high dependency on government support programs (Arntzen, 2003; Chanda et al ., 2005), and remoteness of the region (BTDP, 1998). The tourism activities and businesses are concentrated in th e Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (South African side), Tsabong Village (in Kgalagadi south), Kang Village and the Trans-Kalahari Highway (in Kgalagadi north). Lodges, guesthouses, game fa rms, developed campsites and campgrounds (See Table 3-18) are found in these aforementioned areas (Chanda et al., 2005). The newly created KTP offers an opportunity to further capitaliz e and develop tourism initiatives in and around the Par k. Thus, the present study was undert aken to assess the potential for community-based ecotourism development in order to improve the traditional livelihood of the local people and to assess residents support for the newly created Tran sfrontier Park (KTP). It is essential that primary stakeholders and the associated issues of de velopment be identified by involvement of all affected groups to address th e complex matters of de velopment within their community. The recent emphasis on tourism development requires that multiple stakeholder involvement should be increased, especially am ong those most affected, such as the local
29 residents, public authorities, private businesses, visitors and tourists (Aas, Ladkin & Fletcher, 2005; Brandt & Mohammed, 2006; Byrd, 2007; By rd et al., 2008; Himo onde, 2007; Nicholas, 2007; Nicholas, Thapa, & Ko, 2009; Nicholas, Th apa & Pennington-Gray, 2009; Sikaraya, Teye & Sonmez, 2002; Scheyvens, 1999; Simmons, 1994; Tosun & Timothy, 2003; Tosun, 2006). Hence, the public sectors (local and national re presentatives) perspectives were also integrated in this study. The importance of all stakeholder participation is essentia l because the different groups may have ideas that could influence policy changes or developmental decisions for their areas of abode and beyond. Based on the utility of stakeholder groups, this study is premised on stakeholder theory. Theoretical Foundation Stakeholder theory originated from th e discipline of business sciences and was popularized by Freeman in the 1980s. The theory wa s introduced and utilized mainly in business management to improve production effectiveness and to ensure quality management, but the concepts have been widely used in other disc iplines as well (Clarks on, 1995; De Lopez, 2001; 2005; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Grimble & We llard, 1997; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1998; Polonsky, 1995; Toteng, 2004). Freeman (1984) noted that stakeholders are any groups or individuals who can affect, or are affected by, the achievement of an organizations mission (p.25). Grimble and Wellard (1997) identified stak eholder as any group of people, organized or unorganized, who share a common interest or st ake in a particular issue or system (p.175). Furthermore, Chevalier (2001) noted that stakehol ders are groups, constituencies, social actors or institutions of any size or a ggregation that act at various levels (domestic, local, regional, national, international, private a nd public) and have a si gnificant and specific stake in a given set of resources, and can affect or be affected by resource management problems or interventions (Chevalier, 2001 cited in Mulale, 2005, p.13). Stakeholder theory is largely used as a technique
30 to identify and assess the importan ce of key players/actors, people, groups and institutions that may influence the success of an idea or a vent ure (Byrd et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 1997). Generally, it is used to explain, guide and assess the structure and operation of institutions and organizations. The theory is built on the premise that an initiative or projec t can be successful if the various groups and individuals who have a stake in it can c ontribute to its accomplishment (Clarkson, 1995). Farrington (1996) found that stakeholder analysis has been developed in response to the challenge of multip le interests and objectives, such as the search for efficient, equitable and environmentally sustainable development strategies (Farrington, 1996, p.9). Stakeholders differ by the size of the stak e they have in the firm (Hill & Jones, 1992, p.133), and groups can be reliably identified as stakeholders based on their possession of power, legitimacy and/or urgency (Banerjee, 2000; Fr eeman & Miles, 1997; Frooman, 1999; Mitchell et al., 1997). Banerjee (2000) refers to ones ability to carry out his/her own will despite resistance of others (i.e. the stakeholders power to influe nce) (Freeman & Miles, 1997). Legitimacy refers to the stakeholders relationship w ith the firm and/or his/her right to exercise power. Legitimacy is required to provide authorit y, such as in the right of a gove rnment to rule and make policy (Toteng, 2004). This view concurs with Freeman & Miles (1997) argument that all stakeholder groups can affect or be affected by an action, de cision or development. In addition, stakeholders can be used to illuminate the interests of all groups (F arrington, 1996) especially, the marginalized groups (Frooman, 1999). Stakeholder analysis has been widely used to improve the effectiveness of business organizations (Mitchell et al., 1997; Polonsky, 19 95), enhance the understanding of the political ecology of water management and urban environmental management (Toteng, 2001; 2004), identify stakeholder participat ion in trans-boundary natural res ource management (Chengeta et
31 al., 2003), increase the recognition and participation of margina lized groups in community projects (Mitchell, 2003; Nyce, 2003), and identi fy stakeholder groups and their roles (Byrd, 2007; Mitchell, 2003; Mulale, 2005; Nicholas, 20 07; Toteng, 2004). However, the history of application of stakeholder theory in tourism sciences is fairly short (Byrd, 2004; Byrd et al., 2008; Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Murphy, 1981; 1985; Nicholas, 2007; Nicholas et al., 2009a; 2009b; Timothy, 1999). Stakeholder theory has been used to in crease collaboration between different tourism resource users and institutions, es pecially on issues relevant to planning, development, resource utilization and management. For instance, Mede iros de Araujo & Bramwell (1999) applied the theory to identify stakeholders who were affected by a Costa Dour ada tourism project in Brazil. They identified stakeholder groups as environmen tal groups, business interests, public authorities and community groups. Additional findings reveal ed a strong public sector involvement and relatively weak private sector involvement in project planning. In addition, they found that involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in the planning process was difficult and time consuming; yet, they highlighted the significant benefits of sustaina bility that resulted from the approach. Similarly, Timothy (1998) used the theory to assess stakehol der participation in planning as a way to promote su stainable tourism development. Further, Byrd (2006) applied stakeholder theory to identify stakeholders a nd the roles they play in sustainable tourism development. Byrds (2006) study revealed that local community planners and destination management organizations were concerned about al l stakeholder groups in their area, especially local residents. In order to have a sustainable tourism ventur e, managers and planners need to incorporate multiple stakeholder interests in destination pr oduct development (Byrd, 2007; Byrd, Cardenas
32 & Greenwood, 2008; McKercher & du Cros, 2002; Mi llar, 2006; Tosun, 1998). The lack of and failure to adequately involve all affected stakeh olders can increase the potential for conflicts and can reinforce inequalit ies (Byrd, 2007; McKercher & du Cros, 2002; Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Molale, 2005; Nicholas et al., 2009b; Timothy, 1998). Comm unity planners and destination management organizations ought to be cautious and concer ned about the various stakeholders and their needs and aspirations within the host community (Byrd et al., 2008; Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999). Mulale (2005) adopted Mitchell et al.'s ( 1997) stakeholder salience model in order to classify stakeholder groups a nd organizations involved in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) initiatives in Botswana. According to Mulale (2005), state agencies were the most salient stakeholders; non-govern mental organizations (NGOs) were dangerous stakeholders; and the CBNRM community-based organizations (CBOs) were the most dependent and/or demanding stakeholders. Further, the stat e institutional actors (as primary stakeholders) were found to dominate the CBNRM program by formulating objectiv es and strategizing or even dictating how management should operate (Mulale, 2005). Cornejo (2004) applied the theory to evalua te the promotion of community-based forest enterprise in common property regimes in E jido X-Maben, Mexico. Stakeholder theory was examined to understand management of natura l resources for ecotourism, as well as for identification of the stakeholder groups and their interests. Findi ngs noted that local resident communities participated and benefited from th e ecotourism industry based on forest resources and local culture. Recently, Nicholas (2007) applied the theory to assess the support of three stakeholder groups (visitors, residents and policy makers ) for the Pitons Management Area and for
33 sustainable tourism development at the only World Heritage Site in St. Lucia. Generally, there was positive support for sustainable tourism deve lopment in the area. However, a lack of involvement by local residents in the management and decision-making of the site was identified as the most significant challenge for the growth of sustainable tourism at the site. The lack of coordination and inadequate communication with in management and between the policy makers was also a major concern. Recommendations in cluded the need to improve communication and collaboration among the stakeholders, and a call fo r full involvement of local communities in the developmental affairs of protected areas (Nic holas, 2007). A similar sentiment with respect to local community involvement was shared by Aas et al. (2005); Byrd et al. (2008); Timothy (1998) and Wearing (2001). According to Wearing (2001) all local interest groups in perfect circumstances s hould be provided with the opportunity to have their say early in any polic y, management or pla nning process (p. 406). Walker (1996) contends that in order to maxi mize the positive impacts of ecotourism, residents must be included in the planning and development of ecotourism projects in the early stages (p. 944). Also, because the rural comm unities are vulnerable to the effects of development, they need to be aware of and participate in decision making for a project that will affect them or be affected by them (Timothy, 1998; Tos un, 2006: Walker, 1996; Wearing, 2001). Millar (2006) noted, Until recently, a lim ited number of stakeholders (such as) governments, conservation experts a nd local authorities were involve d in the process, (but) local communities, (indigenous groups), local amenity and local community groups, local businesses, tour companies and visitors were largely left ou t of the consultation and management processes (p. 38). Millar (2006) further discussed the need for a change from the rigid top-down approach
34 of management of communally owned resource s, and he recommended a bottom-up partnership approach that involves more gr oups of local and regional stakehol ders with varying interests. However, Wearing (2001) notes that, not al l groups want the same things (p. 406), as some stakeholder groups may be interested in natural or cultural heritage issues, while others may be interested in a healthy place to live. Stakeholder involvement in development, management and decision-making is essential if all stakeholder interests are considered. Thus, such assessment can assist planners to identify the interests, groups a nd individuals that are stakeholders, as well as their values, interests and relative po wer (Aas et al., 2005; Banerjee, 2000; Millar, 2006; Mitchell, 2003). Participation in collabora tive tourism planning promotes sustainable development by incr easing efficiency, equity and harmony (Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Nicholas et al., 2009a). Stakeholder theory was employed as the theoretical framework for this study. Two primary stakeholder groups were used as the focus for this research: the public sector (local and national government personnel, Non Governmental Organisations and other policy makers), and the resident communities adjacent to a Transboundary Park the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. These two stakeholder groups were selected be cause of residents di verse perceptions and attitudes, and the public sector s likelihood to influence policies, decisions and actions with respect to development, management and conservation of communal resources at KTP. This study adopted the definition of primary stakeholders put forth by Mitchell et al. (1997), as those who bear some form of risk, as a result of having invested some form of capital, human or financial, something of value, in a firm (p. 854). In this study, the resident communities were those individuals who had lived in the Kgalagadi for at least one year or were born there and would readily identi fy with the resources found in the area. The assumption is that
35 the livelihood of these individuals is in large part very dependent on the natural and cultural resources found inside the Pa rk and on its periphery. This study was conducted in an area where academic research on ecotourism, community-based ecotourism, or stakeholde rs attitudes on tour ism development has not been empirically conducted. The importance of studyi ng perspectives of stakeholders towards community-based ecotourism development in the Kgalagadi region is underscored by Hitchcocks argument that remote area populations in Botswana are divided in their opinions about tourism (Hitchcock, 1991, p.164). Also, soliciti ng perceptions and attitudes of stakeholder groups who have a stake in the natural and cultural resources of their area (K galagadi) is likely to have an impact on the support for CBE development and support for conservation of KTP as a Transboundary Park. Walker (1996) argues that assessments of knowledge of ecotourism impacts can be measured by way of understandin g local residents per ceptions of costs and benefits of community ecotourism. Also, in order to understand tourism development issues within local communities, the residents attitudes, concerns and perceptions must first be sought, understood and considered (Millar, 2006; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001). Significance of Study Stakeholder participation and involvem ent in CBE and conservation has been found to be an effective strategy used to circumvent and re solve conflicts related to development, planning, and management of communal resources. This study was conducted in Botswanas remote Kgalagadi region, where issues that pertain to common property and multiple-use rangeland management are important. Rangeland erosion and re source-use conflicts are major challenges to the rural communities of Kgalagadi. Incidences of human poverty3 are not uncommon. Lack of 3 Human Poverty refers to the inability to afford minimal standard s of food, clothing, shelter an d health care (Robertson, 1989, p.188)
36 alternative livelihoods has put st rains on the limited resources of the area. Thus, alternative livelihoods are highly needed among the rural local comm unities in the district. Studies conducted in the Kgalagadi region have focused primarily on biodiversity and ecology (geomorphology, soil characteristics, ve getation, wildlife, rangelands and history). Minimal work has covered the socio-economic deve lopment issues of the area (i.e. rangelands and livelihood dynamics, the economic value of communal rangelands and livestock farming). The study will complement the Western Kgalag adi Conservation Corridor (WKCC) project, which is an initiative spearheaded by the Gove rnment of Botswana in collaboration with Conservation International (CI) and the French Global E nvironmental Fund (FFEM). The WKCC goal is to implement a project that will help to conserve the biodiversity and integrity of the western Kgalagadi ecosystem by establishing ecological corridors between KTP and CKGR (wwwambafrance-bw.org). Additionally, the proj ect intends to i) enhance environmental awareness among the communities, ii) reduce human-w ildlife conflicts, iii) ensure that benefits accrued from the use of natural resources are shared by the community, and iv) improve the standard of living of the community. The Kgalagadi district is a germane and appr opriate site for investigating stakeholder or residents perceptions of CBE development and support for the safeguardi ng of KTP as a transboundary park. The area is also suitable for assessing stakeholders general conservation attitudes towards KTP, because no study has been conducted to examine local support for conservation of KTP since it was converted into a Transboundary Park. So far, the minimal tourism-related studies in the Kgalagadi district and the rest of southwestern Botswana have not addressed residents knowledge a bout tourism, or thei r perceptions and conc erns about tourism
37 development. Studies related to the general t ourism development have focused primarily on the northwestern and eastern districts and the Okavango Delta region. This study employed both quantitative and qualitative perspectives in its data acquisition. Several studies have indicated th e necessity for comprehensive rese arch that would ensure that residents voices be heard, hence, the researcher preferred to util ize stakeholder analysis in this study. The findings of this study will guide polic y makers, managers, practitioners and planners in natural and cultural resource management and the tourism industry en masse. Stakeholder perspectives can be utilized as a guide for futu re community-based ecotourism development in southwestern Botswana and the entire Kgalag adi district. The resu lts will add to the understanding of factors that influence perceptions about ecotourism development and stakeholder support for Transboundary protected ar eas or parks worldwide. The study will also contribute to the body of knowledge about protected area management (natural and cultural) and adjacent local communities in Botswana, Southern Africa and globally. Pilot Study The research issues for this study are based on the prelim inary assessment about community-based tourism which was undertaken in summer 2006 by the researcher. The purpose of the pilot study was to explore key informants attitudes towards tour ism in the Kgalagadi region. The study was an attempt to gain knowledge about the level of tourism awareness among local people, including their vi ews of the importance of the to urism industry, their understanding of the concept of conservation and the reas ons why the Park (KTP) was created, their experiences with existing touris m projects, and their desires a bout future tourism vis--vis existing traditional livelihood. The sample consisted of 19 key informants w ho worked and lived in the district and were all identified via purposive sampling. The key informants were selected from the following
38 villages and settlements: Tshane (2), Tsabong (6 ), Bokspits (2), Hukuntsi (4), Khawa (2) and Kang (2). The informants were comprised of the fo llowing: traditional leaders, village chiefs, the district council, a district lands development officer, a community development officer, the Land Board Secretary, the village development committ ee chair, the tourism officer, a Department of Wildlife and National Park repres entative, a councilorpolitician, a street vendor, a lodge owner, the agricultural research board, a representa tive from the youth club, and local individuals. Face-to-face in-depth semi -structured interviews using an interview guide were conducted. Tape-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. Memos and field notes gathered during interviews were revisited and incorporat ed in the analysis. Open, axial and selective coding processes were used to develop, define and redefine categories and themes (Daly, McDonald, & Willis, 1992; Patton, 1990; 2000) The general assessment identified the following: There were 62% males and 38% females; the youngest was 24 and the oldest was 77 years. Residents livelihoods were dependent on lives tock farming, hunting a nd gathering (by the poorer section of the community), crop farming and remittances. Local residents awareness of tourism was relatively low. A few of the key informants had general knowledge about tourism as a busine ss. Yet, most participants believed that tourism could be accomplished only by owning a lodging facility, and that tourism was considered to be economically beneficial. Despite lack of familiarity with tourism as a business, respondents considered tourism as positive and a worthwhile development for their district. All participants were positive about tourism development. However, they were not wellinformed about tourism, because they asso ciated tourism only with economic benefits, primarily, income and employment. None of them mentioned any negative effects associated with tourism. Perceptions of conservation were positive and were relatively high, as respondents believed that the Park was helping them to keep their natural resources safe from overuse. With respect to the future of tourism, the participants indicated the need for the government to provide adequate infrastructure and other supporting services for tourism.
39 Purpose of Study Based on earlier research and recommendations the purpose of this study was to examine stakeholders perspectives with respect to the potential for community-based ecotourism development and support4 for KTP as a Transfrontier Park in Kgalagadi, southwestern Botswana. Specifically, the following research objectives were formulated and assessed: 1. a) To examine residents support for co mmunity-based ecotourism development b) What factors influence support for CBE development? 2. a) To assess residents su pport for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park b) What factors influence support fo r KTP as a Transfrontier Park? 3. a) To assess public sectors (local & na tional) perspectives on support both for CBE development and b) support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Conceptual Framework Two conceptual frameworks were formulated and empirically tested in this study. Figures 1-1 & 1-2 illustrate the hypothe sized causal relationships betw een independent and dependent variables. Previous studies have been used as the foundation for the conceptual models of relationship between explanatory and respons e variables. Accordingly, hypotheses were developed and are explained below. In the concep tual models, there were two response variables: Support for Community-based Ecotourism (CBE) development, and Support for the KTP as a Transfrontier Park. The analysis examined factor s that influenced or predicted support for the two response variables. The independent or pr edictor variables were : Perception about CBE, General Conservation Attitudes, Potential Community Concern, Participation (use level), and Socio-demographic Characteristics (Age, Ge nder, Education, Length of Residence, and Distance/Proximity). The arrows in the conceptu al model(s) and the resp ective directional flow 4 In this study, support means that residents will ex hibit positive attitudes to KTP as a Transboundary protected area and will express favor toward CBE development.
40 predicted associations between re sponse and criterion variables. Path analysis was employed in order to assess the independent variables affect or influence on the outcome variable(s). The predictor variable s were identified and adapted from multiple sources (Cole, 2009; Durant & Durant, 2008; Dyer, Gursoy & Shar ma, 2007; Gursoy, Jurowski & Uysal, 2002; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005; McCool & Martin, 199 4; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Ormsby & Mannie, 2006; Vincent & Thompson, 2002; Weladji, Moe & Vedeld, 2003) and further reviewed below. Perception about CBE Researchers have iden tified th at local residents perceive tourism positively due to its propensity to create jobs, generate income, and provi de social services and infrastructure in local communities (Andereck et al., 2005; Dyer et al ., 2007; Jurowski, 1994; Jurowski et al., 1997; Khan, 1997; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005; Murphy, 19 85; Sikaraya et al., 2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). Other studies have found that, when resident communities were dependent on tourism economically, they tended to hold strong support for its development (Andereck et al., 2005; Ap, 1992; Banks, 2003; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Carmichael, 2006; Jurowski, 1994; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005; Lepp, 2004; 2007; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Zamani-Farahani & Musa, 2008). Also, when residents were involved in th e tourism industry or re creation activity they tended to show more support for additional tourism development (Cordes & Ibrahim, 1999; Cole, 2006; Dyer et al., 2007; Lepp, 2004; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). Residents who showed positive environmental behaviors expressed suppor t of tourism (Jurowski et al., 1997; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005; Perdue et al., 1990). However, local people with negative perceptions and attitudes about tourism showed less support for its development (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Banks, 2003; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005; Teye, Sonmez, & Sikaraya, 2002; Wilson et al., 2001).
41 Regarding ecotourism, socio-economic fact ors, such as investments, increased employment, social services, qua lity of life, income and invo lvement in the industry-related projects, have been found to influence resident s support for the ecotourism industry (Alexander, 2000; Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Khatib, 2000; Kibicho, 2003; Ormsby & Kaplin, 2005; Ormsby & Mannie, 2006; Sikaraya et al., 2002). For example, Vincent and Thompsons (2002) study on perceptions and support for the develo pment of an ecotourism project in Texas discovered that residents were ve ry supportive of it. Therefore, in this study it was hypothesized that residents who held positive perceptions abou t ecotourism would be likely to express support for CBE development. There is a paucity of res earch about perception of CBE and support for PAs. However studies have revealed that residents who showed positive perception of PA-based tourism due to accrued benefits tended to be very supportive (A llendorf, 2007; Allendorf et al., 2007; Mugisha, 2002; Ormsby & Kaplin, 2005; Ormsby & Mannie, 2006). Those with negative perceptions towards PAs and associated t ourism activities were less suppo rtive (Allendorf et al., 2007; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). For example, Ite (1 996) discovered that local communities in southeast Nigeria held less support for the Cross River National Park and the related ecotourism activities due to its conservation programs. Th erefore, it was hypothesize d that residents who held positive perceptions about ecotourism would be likely to support KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Conservation Attitudes Eagly & Chaiken (1998) define attitude as a psychological tendency that is expressed by evalua ting a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (p. 269). Also, an attitude is regarded as the tendency to feel toward or reac t to a given object or su bject in a certain way (Cordes & Ibrahim, 1999, p. 41). At titudes have different dimens ions as they can show how
42 individuals feel, think and behave (cognitive), as well as what is being liked or disliked (affective) or what actions are performed toward something (beh avior) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1991). Literature has found th at residents attitudes are commonly influenced by the costs or benefits that an individual or group e xperiences (Infield, 1988; Jurowski, Daniels & Pennington-Gray, 2006; Madrigal, 1995; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). Carmichael (2006) noted that if residents hold beliefs a bout the effects of tourism, they know if they like or dislike these effects the level of reaction is likely to depend on the importance that they place on the perceived impacts and the likelihood of it affecting their quality of life (p.118). Also, the literature has reporte d that residents general conservation attitudes toward PAs have been influenced in part due to human-wildlife conflicts (De Boer & Baquete, 1998; Gadd, 2005; Kiss, 1990; Naughton-Treves 1997; Newmark, Leonard, & Sa riko et al., 1993; Newmark, Manyanza, & Gamassa et al., 1994), forceful relocation of communities from PAs (Baral & Heinen, 2007; Bauer, 2003; Brandon, 2007; Bo laane, 2004; Gadd, 2005; Lepetu, 2007; Lepp, 2004; Lewis & Jackson, 2005; Meskell, 2005; Parry & Campbell, 1992; Sekhar, 2003), and lack of access to forest resources, and an inability to hunt or perform rituals in the protected areas (Baral & Heinen, 2007; Bolaane, 2004; Bra ndon, 2007; De Boer & Baquete, 1998; Gadd, 2005; Lepetu, 2007; Meskell, 2005). Gene rally, wildlife damage, predation, resource dependence, strict conservation policies, loss of extraction rights, shortage of land for agriculture and sociodemographic factors have contributed to the vari ations in lack of support for PA (De Boer & Baquete, 1998; Gadd, 2005; Gillingham & L ee, 1999; Kideghesho, Newmark et al., 1993; Newmark et al., 1994; Roskaft & Kaltenbor n, 2007; Lepetu, 2007; Lepp, 2004; Lewis & Jackson, 2005; Maveneke, 2003; Meskell, 2005; Parry & Campbell, 1992, Spiteri & Nepal, 2008).
43 Conversely, other studies have also shown th at local residents we re likely to indicate positive attitudes towards conservation and tourism, particularly when they were satisfied with accrued benefits (Baral & Heinen, 2007, Gillin gham & Lee, 1999; Infield, 1988; Infield & Namara, 2001; Newmark et al., 1993; Lepetu, 2007; Lepp, 2004; 2007; Mb aiwa, 2008; Parry & Campbell, 1992; Toteng at al., 2006; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). Conservation policies and cost of tourism development can impede local peoples support for PA-based tourism and conservation activities (Bauer, 2003). Collectively, stakeholders support for PAs is dependent on and associated with tangible benefits obtai ned (Alexander, 2000; De Boer & Baquete 1998; Gadd, 2005). In this study it was hypothesized th at residents who held positive attitudes to conservation of PAs would be li kely to express support for KT P as a Transfrontier Park. Community Concern Residents are generally concerne d with the associated cons eque nces of tourism growth in their respective communities. Findings in the li terature has identified that residents were concerned with increased traffic congestion (A ndereck et al., 2005; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Jurowski et al., 1997; Long et al., 1990; Mason & Cheyne, 2000), li ttering and cost of living in the community (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Murphy, 1985), overcrowding and congestion, increase in crime and noise levels (Ander eck et al., 2005; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Burns & Howard, 2003; Dyer et al., 2007; Jurowski, 1994; Keogh, 1990; Long et al., 1990; McCool & Martin, 1994; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Murphy, 1981; 1985; Orams, 2002), and environmental problems caused by construction of lodging establishments and other tourist facilities (Dyer et al., 2007; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005). In general, such concerns about tourism did not always decrease local communities desire s and support for tourism development (Andereck et al., 2005; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005; Jurowski et al., 2002; Smith & Krannich, 1998). For example, Gursoy et al. (2002) developed a model to determine if residents support for tourism
44 was affected by their level of concern about tourism development in the community. Level of concern did not have influence on how the benefits and cost of tourism were evaluated in some communities. This implies that specific concerns tended to be site specific and variable. Generally, there were differences in opinions regarding concer n about tourism and support for tourism development in the community. Thus, it was hypothesized that co ncern would have an inverse relationship with s upport for CBE development. Also, variations in perceptions with resp ect to concern about th e negative effects of tourism development and support for PAs have been documented. Community concern and support for PAs were found to be linked with human-wildlife in teractions (Baral & Heinen, 2007; Bauer, 2003; Brandon, 2007; Burns & Howar d, 2003; Orams, 2002; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001), land use policies, and acquisition challe nges by residents (Bolaane, 2004; Durrant & Durrant, 2008; Himoonde, 2007; Kiss, 2004). Local residents who experienced negative impacts of tourism associated with a PA were not supportive (Bauer, 2003; Brandon, 2007; Burns & Howard, 2003; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005; Walpole & G oodwin, 2001). In other situations, residents who were concerned about park-based tourism were still able to i ndicate support (Lepp, 2004; Mugisha, 2002). In this study it was hypothesized that concern about tourism would have an inverse relationship with support fo r KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Participation (Use Levels) Visits to a n ational park environment are important because they give people the opportunity to interact with th e natural environment through activitie s such as nature walks, horse riding, game drives, sightseeing and w ilderness camping (Cordes & Ibrahim, 1999). Such activities, provide experiences that are emotiona lly and spiritually rewarding (Cordes & Ibrahim, 1999, p. 186). Thus, individuals who us e recreation resources will have different perspectives than those who do not use them (Dyer et al., 2007; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004).
45 However, the geographic location and proximity to a resource such as a PA or natural attractions and campgrounds is likely to have an influence on levels of use by residents (Cordes & Ibraham, 1999; Durant & Durant, 2008; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005). Local residents who use the recreation-tourism re source heavily did not support development. Residents who lived farther expressed s upport for tourism (Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004). Also, lack of participation in park-resource management has had adverse effects on local individuals perceptions and attitudes toward tourism developm ent, subsequently leading to less support for PAs (Bolaane, 2004; Hall, 2000; Keogh, 1990; Mitchell & Re id, 2001; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Weladji & Tchamba, 2003). The leve l of support for park-based activities is related to increased participat ion in tourism and recreational activities (Hall, 2000; Lankford, 1994; Lankford & Howard, 1994). This presen t study examined whether residents who participate in KTP (use the facility) would support CBE deve lopment and thereby support KTP as a Transboundary area. Thus, it was hypothesized that residents pa rticipation (use level) at the Park (KTP) would be likely to influence support for CBE development and for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Socio-Demographics Local residents are not homogenous, as diffe rences and support for tourism development are generally based on socio-demographics (e.g., age, gender, education, income, residence). Socio-demographic characteristics have been assessed with regard to residents support for tourism development, with variations in findings (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; King, Pizam, & Milman, 1993; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue et al., 1990; Ryan & Montgo mery, 1994; Wang & Pfister, 2008). Age has been found to influence residents s upport for tourism deve lopment, especially among younger residents (Haralambopoulis & Pi zam, 1996; Huh & Vogt, 2007; Tomljenovic &
46 Faulkner, 2000). For example, the younger resi dents in Labuan Bajo, Indonesia (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001) and the Greek Island of Samos (Haralambopoulis & Pizam, 1996) expressed positive perceptions and support for tourism devel opment compared to elderly people. Elderly people were not supportive of touris m development as they associated it with a threat to local traditions (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Wilson et al., 2001). Therefore, it was hypothesized that age was likely to have an i nverse relationship with support for CBE development. Also residents support for PAs was found to be infl uenced by age (De Boer & Baquete, 1998). Thus, it was hypothesized that age was likely to inversel y influence support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Males have been found to express positive perceptions and more support for tourism development than females (Harill & Potts, 2003; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Pizam, 1978). Hence, it was hypothesized that ma les were likely to be more supportive of CBE development. Similarly, increase in education was found to have a positive relationship on support for tourism (Sikaraya et al., 2002; Teye et al., 2002; Walpole & Goodwin), which was accordingly hypothesized in this study. Also, length of residency has been found to be linked with positive perceptions and support for tourism development, with long-te rm residents in the community tending to demonstrate more support (Haralambopoulis & Pizam, 1996; McCool & Martin, 1994). Additionally, McGehee & Ander eck (2004) found that a positiv e relationship existed among residents who have lived in the community longer due to histori cal ties with the area, and they therefore supported tourism devel opment. In other situations, long-term residents were more negative towards tourism industry, and were less supportive of additional tourism development (Allen et al., 1988; Jurowski, 1994).
47 Individual members of the community who have lived longer near PA tended to have negative attitudes toward conservation. They may have experienced restrictive management and conservation policies (Bauer, 2003; De Boer & Baquete, 1998). In other situations, residents have indicated a positive relationship and s upport for PAs (Gursoy et al., 2002; McCool & Martin, 1994). Hence, it was hypothe sized that length of residency was likely to have a positive relationship with support for KT P as a Transfrontier Park. Similarly, studies have discovered that women and younger children were mostly disadvantaged, and hence they lacked particip ation in conservation-related activities, and therefore were less supportiv e of PAs (Lepp, 2004; 2006; Ma nwa, 2003; Mordi, 1987; Sah & Heinen, 2001; Mutandwa & Gadzirayi, 2007). It wa s hypothesized that gender was likely to have a positive influence on support of KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Education has been found to influence support for PAs, as those with higher education tended to be pro-conservation and supportive of PAs (De Boer & Baquete, 1998; Kideghesho et al., 2007; Mehta & Heinen, 2001; Walpole & Goodwi n, 2001) and associated park-based tourism development (Bauer, 2003; De Boer & Baquete 1998). Therefore, it was hypothesized that a positive relationship existed between education and support for KTP. Distance/Proximity Distance and proxim ity have been studied to determine residents support for or restrictions on tourism development, support for additional tourism, tour ism preferences (types), perceptions of tourism impacts, and attitudes towards conserva tion of PAs (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Durrant & Durrant, 2008; Gursoy & Jurowski, 20 02; Harrill, 2004; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Kuvan & Kuvan, 2005; Madr igal, 1994; Perdue et al., 1990; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). Studies have found that the percep tion of tourism development impact varies with the residential distance/proximity to a touris t zone or resource. Residents who lived closer
48 to the resource favored and had positive attitudes towards touris m development due to accrued benefits (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Keogh, 1990; Sh eldon & Var, 1984). Rural residents who lived farther away from a PA or a tourism source ha d negative attitudes (Keogh, 1990). On the other hand, in Mt. Rogers National Park in southwest Vi rginia, distance had a significant effect on how costs and benefits were evaluated by the re sidents (Jurowski & Gu rsoy, 2004). Recreation resource users who lived closest to the Park were more negative or less supportive of tourism than those who lived farther away. However, st rong support for tourism is more likely to be positive at the initial stage of development and also due to residential proximity (Butler, 1980, Murphy, 1983; 1985). In this study, it was hypothe sized that support for CBE was dependent upon distance/proximity of residents. Similarly, residents who lived close to M ount Kilimanjaro conservation area showed more support for PA and conservation of res ources (Durrant & Durrant, 2008). In a study in Belek, Turkey, residents who lived closer to the PA were less supportive of it, as they had become more sensitive to the problems of the forest (Kuva n & Kuvan, 2005). Additionally, in Bigodi, Uganda, resident farmers who lived clos er to and had farms on the boundary of Kibale National Park expressed nega tive attitudes toward the Park and staff (Lepp, 2004; 2007). Furthermore, Spiteri & Nepal (2008) discovered that local people whos e homes were distant from the Park entrance gained only a few benefits and therefore were less supportive of the PA. However, it has also been found that residents who lived far from the PA were more likely to favor park-based tourism than those who lived at intermediate distances (Harrill & Potts, 2003).Thus, it was hypothesized that distance/prox imity will positively influence support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park.
49 Hypotheses (Residents) Support for community-based ecotourism development Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive associati on between perception about CBE and support for CBE developm ent. Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive association between conservation attitudes towards KTP and support for CBE development. Hypothesis 3: There will be a negative association between levels of community concern and support for CBE development. Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive association be tween participation (use level) and support for CBE development. Hypothesis 5 : There will be a significant associati on between the co-variates (i.e., age, gender, education, residence, and distance/proximity) and support for community-based ecotourism development Hypothesis 5a: There will be a negative association between age and support for CBE development. Hypothesis 5b: There will be a positive association between gender and support for CBE development Hypothesis 5c : There will be a positive association between le vel of education and support for CBE development. Hypothesis 5d: There will be a positive association between length of residence and CBE development. Hypothesis 5e : There will be a positive association between the distance/proximity of residents to KTP and suppor t for CBE development. See model in Figure 1-1 for hypotheses 1-5(a-e). Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park Hypothesis 6: There will be a positive association between perception of CBE and support for KTP as a Transfrontier park Hypothesis 7: There will be a positive association between conservation attitudes towards KTP and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Hypothesis 8: There will be a negative associati on between level of community concern and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park.
50 Hypothesis 9: There will be a positive association be tween participation (use level) and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Hypothesis 10: There will be a significant association between the co-variates (i.e., age, gender, education, residence, and distan ce/proximity) and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Hypothesis 10a: There will be a negative association between age and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Hypothesis 10b: There will be a positive associati on between gender and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Hypothesis 10c : There will be a positive association between residents level of education and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Hypothesis 10d: There will be a positive association between length of residence and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Hypothesis 10e : There will be a positive association between the distance/proximity of residents from KTP and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. See model in Figure 1-2 for hypotheses 6-10(a-e). Interview Questions (Public Sector) 1. What do you think of Kgalagadi Transfr ontier P ark as a Transboundary area? 2. What are the major things you like about the KTP? 3. What are the major things you dont like about KTP? 4. What are your opinions about the current management of KTP? 5. What is the role of your orga nization in CBNRM programs? 6. What is your knowledge about Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE)? 7. What is the role of your orga nization in CBE development? 8. What CBE initiatives or projects are in practice in your area? 9. What are the accrued benefits for residents fr om CBNRM and CBOs initiatives in your area? 10. What benefits does your community accrue from the KTP? 11. What is the potential for CBE development in your area?
51 12. CBNRM is the right approach for wildlife conservation Yes No Not sure 13. Give reasons _______ Definition of Terms COMMUNITY BASED ECOTOURISM small scale tourism enterprise s that are community owned and managed are considered to minimize negative impacts, maximize economic benefits for local people and their natural and cultural environment, and provide positive experiences to visitors (Rozemeijer, 2000, p. 5). COMMUNITY a social group with a common territorial base and a sens e of shared interests and belongings (Robertson, (1989, p. 361). CONSERVATION management of human use of the biosphere, so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations, while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of futu re generations (Beder, 1993, p. 23). ECOTOURISM travel to fragile, pristine and usually protected areas th at strive to be low impact and [usually] small scale. It helps ed ucate the traveler; provides funds for conservation; directly benefits th e economic development and political empowerment of local communities, and fosters respect for different cultures and for human rights (Honey, 1999, p. 25). EMPOWERMENT the capacity of individuals or groups to determine their own affairs; it is a process to help people to exert control ove r factors that affect their lives (Cole, 2006, p. 631). HERITAGE includes tangible assets, such as natural and cultural environments, encompassing landscapes, historic places, sites, and built environments, as well as intangible assets, such as collections, past and c ontinuing cultural pract ices, knowledge, and living experiences (ICOMOS, 1999 cite d inMcKercher & Du Cros, 2002, p.7) PARTICIPATION ability of local people to participate in decisions which affect them and which depend upon access to power, resources and knowledge (Wall, 1996, p. 134). PERCEPTION Way an individual analyzes and responds to an idea (underst anding, awareness & knowledge) (Ite, 1996). PROTECTED AREA an area of land or sea especially dedi cated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effectiv e means (International Union for the Conservation of nature and natural resources (IUCN, 2001, p.10) STAKEHOLDER any person, group or organizatio n that is affected by the causes or consequences of an issue; or groups or individual s who affect, or are affected by, the achievement of an organizations mission (Freeman, 1984, p. 52).
52 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT development that meets the n eeds of the present without compromising the ability for future genera tions to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987, p.43). SUSTAINABLE TOURISM tourism whose development and opera tion include partic ipation of the local population, protection of the total envi ronment, fair economic return for the industry and its host community, as well as a mutual respect for and gratification of all involved partie s (Jafari, 1996, p. 959). TRANSFRONTIER PARKS wildlife conservation area with common international boundaries managed as a single unit by a joint authorit y comprising the repr esentatives of the participating countries (IUCN, 2001, p.10).
53 Figure 1-1. Support for community-bas ed ecotourism development (CBE) Figure 1-2. Support for Kgalagadi Transfrontier as a Transfrontier Park (KTP)
54 Figure 1-3. Map of Botswana and the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (GOB, 2002)
55 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter presents the review of litera ture to provide theoretical and empirical background that guides this study. St akeholder theory is used as a guide to assess and appreciate previous research. The literature review is segm ented in three major categories: 1) Tourism in Botswana; 2) Ecotourism; and 3) Protected area management. Tourism in Botswana Visitors to Protected Areas in Botswana Tourism related policies and strategies Community-based natural resources management Ecotourism Community-based ecotourism CBE-success stories Stakeholder participation Stakeholder empowerment Protected area management Resident attitudes Protected Areas in Botswana Trans-boundary/Transfrontier Protected Area Tourism in Botswana In Botswana, tourism is the second larges t economic sector (after mining) and is recognized as a major stimulus to the econom y (BTDP, 2000; GOB, 2001). The industry has been growing steadily over the years as evidence d by the number of visitors, which grew from 106,800 to 203,172 between 1993 and 1998 (Central Stat istics Office CSO, 1998). An increase in visitor numbers was observed in 2005, when over 1.6 million arrivals were recorded (DOT, 2006; WTTC, 2007). The number of foreign invest ors has also increased from 331 in 2000 to approximately 550 in 2004 (Botswana Review, 2005). Ho wever, tourism is still at an early stage
56 of development, and is largely wildlife and wilderness-based (Barnes, 1995; Campbell & von Richter, 1976; Child, 1970; GOB, 2001; WTTC, 2007). About 90% of tourists who come to Botswana visit National Parks and Game Reserves (Botswana Review, 2005; Magole & Gojamang, 2005). Also, about 90 % of Botswana tourists listed wildlife-re lated tourism activity, especially to Chobe and Moremi Game reserves as the greatest attraction (Magole & Gojamang, 2005) Wildlife-based tourism (consumptive and non-consumptive1) plays a significant economic role and contributes 70% of all PA revenues to the total national economy (Gujadhur, 2001; Selby, 1991; WTTC, 2007). Primarily, commerci al utilization of wildlife resources has been practiced via non-consum ptive means mainly in prot ected areas, including Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) (Appendix A). In 2000, wildlife/safari hunting activities generated about US$12.5 million (Arntzen, 2003). Wildlife-based tourism is also considered as the most appealing form of land use (Appendix B) in the country (Barnes, 2001a; Child, 1970; GOB, 2002; 2007; Selby, 1991), as the major activity of sa fari hunting occurs in remote parts of the country, which creates jobs for rural comm unities. Trophy animal hunting (e.g., elephant, buffalo) accrue high revenue for safari hunters and provide income for the rural resident communities (Gujadhur, 2001; Thusanyo Lefatsheng Trust (TLT), 2005; Thakadu, Mangadi, Bernard et al., 2006). Botswana has an abundance of natural, wildlif e and cultural resources. The country has a diverse array of tourism segments which include rural tourism, village tourism, urban tourism, cultural-heritage tourism, desert tourism, wild life and wilderness-based tourism and ecotourism. 1 Refers to use of wild animals for recreational, educatio nal, research, cultural or aesthetic purposes that does not entail the permanent removal of individual game through hunting, cropping, culling, capture or other lethal or nonlethal methods ore removal (GOB, 2002, p.3).
57 Although tourism has been one of Botswanas la rgest generators of income and employment, especially in rural areas (Arntzen et al ., 2003; Botswana Review, 2005; GOB, 2001; WTTC, 2007), its overall potential for further growth has yet to be maximized. Also, impacts of tourism have been uneven, because benefits accruing fr om tourism advancement in the country have been unequally distributed across regions or districts (skewed to the Okavango region). Visitors to Protected Areas in Botswana In Botswana, ecotourism and/CBE activities occur mainly in National Parks, WMAs, Game and Forest Reserves. The protected areas (PAs) are located in remote areas, far away from urban centers and major villages. Although the histor y of tourism in Botswana is short, it reveals that safari-based tourism has been growi ng at a high rate since the 1970s (Child, 1970; Pfotenhauer, 1991; Richter, 1969). According to Child (1970), The economic exploitation of wildlife in Botswana began in earnest during the early 1960s. Since then it has become an important earner of revenue and has contributed more and more significantly to the national economy; but it is a sensitive renewable resource needing careful management if this value is to be enhanc ed or even maintained. (p. 22) Park-based wildlife activities form a large part of community-based tourism (Barnes, 1995; Magole & Gojamang, 2005; WTTC, 2007). This is re flected by visitor numbers, which increased from 76,742 in 1995 to 125,088 in 1997, an increase of 63 percent (BTDP, 2000; CSO, 2001). In 2000, 90% of visitors who came to Botswana listed wildlife-related tourism as their primary purpose of visit (Magole & Goja mang, 2005) Visitor arrivals in northern and southern Parks increased from 139,303 in 2003 to 237,258 in 2005 ( DOT, 2005) (see Table 2-1). A significant growth of visitors to Parks was recorded in 2003-2005, and tourism revenues grew by 14% compared to 12.4% in 2004 (DOT, 2005). Par fees generated from Park-based tourism increased from 18.5 million Pula2 in 2003 to 23.6 in 2005 (DOT, 2005). 2 Botswana Pula (USD 1.00 ~ 6.00 BWP)
58 Of the total visitor arrivals, a large numb er visited the northern Parks and Reserves, mainly the Okavango Delta, Chobe National Park and Moremi Game Reserve (DOT, 2000; 2005; Magole & Gojamang, 2005). In the period be tween 2003 and 2005, a sizeable number of visitors also visited the southern Parks. A significant increase in tourist numbers was realized, as there was an increase from 7,885 in 2003 to 10,427 in 2004 (DOT, 2005). However, the numbers declined in 2005, but there was an increase in total tourism reve nues. Overall, the northern protected areas attract (228, 000) th e highest proportions of all visitors to Botswana and generate more revenue. For example in 2005, 228,000 tourists visited the northern Parks alone and spent 22 million Pula. Of all the parks, Chobe National Park received the highest number of visitors and generated the highest reve nue between 2003 and 2005 (DOT, 2005). There are limited tourism statistics for the Kgalagadi district and most parts of the southwestern Parks. Recently, parks and reserves in the Kalahari region have become known to both inbound and outbound tourists (BTDP, 2003; Roodt, 2008) Visitor numbers to the Kgalagadi region have shown signs of growth in the last decade (S. Keitumetse, personal communication, December 2, 2008). The Central Kgalagadi Game Reserve (CKGR), the largest game reserve in Botswana has experienced an increase in tourists numbers from 230 in 1991 to 3,130 in 1997, and Gemsbok National Park (now Kgalag adi Transfrontier Park) had an increase from 930 in 1995 to 1,125 in 1997 (BTDP, 1998; GOB 2001). Since 1995, the Park has attracted more visitors subsequent to status change from a national (Gemsbok National Park) to a Transboundary Park (Botswana Review, 2005; Chengeta et al., 2003; DWNP, 1999; Peace Parks Foundation, 2009). According to the Department of Tourism (DOT), 5,911 tourists who visited KTP in 2006 generated about P531, 007 (BWP). Overall, a total of 11, 912 visitors were recorded for the
59 southern Parks alone in 2006 (DOT, 2007). The nu mber is significant for the region, yet too low compared to the northern parks (DWNP, 1999; Magole & Gojamang, 2005). The slow growth of tourists to the Kgalagadi region could be due in part to poor marketing and the regions previous accessibility challenges (CIRS, 2002; Johnson, 1996). Poor marketing efforts, lack of resources for tourist development, and increased compe tition by the tourism boom of the Okavango region are major threats to the dist rict (Johnson, 1996; Chanda et al., 200; Moswete et al., 2009). However, the opening hours extension at the Ma muno/Buitepos border from 8 to 18 per day (the longest in Botswana) has also co ntributed to increase the visitor arrivals (Chanda et al., 2005). High tourist traffic has been noted during the months of January, April, July, and December for both international and domestic visitors (Chanda et al., 2005). Of all the 11,665 (11,912) visitors in 2006, 1,700 were citizens. The hi ghest number of visitors were from South Africa at 5,907 (51%) and 1,363 (12%) were from Europe. Collectively, visitors spent 27,829 camp nights and 6,996 days in the area in 2006. Reve nue collected from gate/entry points and wilderness camping was over 3.2 million Pula (DWNP, 2007). Tourism Related Policies and Strategies There are several conservation and environmental policies and legislation that promote or embrace community-based ecotourism development in Botswana. Three key policies are: the Tourism Policy of 1990, Wildlife Conservation Policy of 1986, and the National Ecotourism Strategy of 2003 The 1990 Tourism Policy aims to diversify the economy by decentralizing the control and management of wildlife resources to districts and local communities (GOB, 1990). The main goal is to promote rural developmen t, in which local communities can utilize wildlife and other natural resources for their own benef its. The general objective of the policy is to obtain, on a sustainable basis, the greatest net social and economic benefits for Batswana (citizens) from their tourism resources, scenic beauty, wildlife and uni que ecological, geological
60 and cultural characteristics" (GOB, 1990, p.5). Th e policy emphasizes that tourism activities should be conducted on an ecologically sustainabl e basis, and that proceeds should accrue to benefit the citizens. The policy is designed to allow local communities living on the boundaries of protected areas to obtain direct and indirect benefits from tour ism, so that they can appreciate the importance of tourism resources especially wildlife (BTDP, 1999). The 1986 Wildlife Conservation Policy enco urages the development of commercial wildlife industry that is viable on long term and will serve to create economic opportunities, jobs, and incomes for the rural population in part icular, and the national economy in general (GOB, 1986, p. 1). This clearly stat es that wildlife activities should generate economic benefits in rural areas, as well as facilitate job creati on and allow for active participation of citizens in wildlife management and utilization (GOP, 1986). The National Ecotourism Strategy of 2003 was formulated for implementation concurrently with the National Tourism Master Plan (2000). Some of the key objectives of the strategy are: 1) to enhance understanding of the concept of ecotourism among all stakeholder groups, and to raise awareness of the costs, benefits, opportu nities and implications of development that targets tourists, visitors and local citizens; (2) to increase the number of citizens meaningfully involved in and benefiting from the tourism industry; 3) to generate employment opportunities, mainly in rural areas, and raise incomes in order to alleviate poverty and reduce rural-urban migration and 4) to promote socio-economic well-being in the communities adjacent to protected areas (GOB, 2003, p. 2). There are also several key po lices formulated by the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism and implemented by the Department s of Tourism and Wildlife and National Parks (GOB, 2001) to advocate involvement of rural commun ities in the sustainable utilization of
61 natural resources and tourism development These include the Community-Based Strategy for Rural Development (CBSRD) of 1997 and the Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) Policy of 2007. The overall objective of the CBSRD is to develop community-based approaches to rural devel opment that address economic stagnation and creation of employment and economic opportunities (CBSRD, 1997). The CBNRM was created to promote and diversify economic development in the rural areas through the sustainable use of natural resources. In addition, to increase the pr oportion of benefits from wildlife utilization and tourism industries that will reach local citi zens and communities, especially employment, training, skill enhancement, and i nvestment opportuni ties (GOB, 1997). Community-Based Natural Resources Management Community-Based Natural Resources Mana gement (CBNRM) is an approach or framework that has been formulated to encour age better resource management outcomes with full participation of local communities and resour ce users in decision making activities, and the incorporation of local institutions, customary practices, and knowledge systems in management, regulatory, and enforcement processes (Bor ri-Feyerband 1996 cited in Armitage, 2005, p.703). CBNRM as a management and developmenta l framework featured in the Southern African literature in the 1980s. The framewor k was established on the premise that rural communities must have the power to make deci sions regarding natural resource utilization (Child, Ward & Tavengwa, 1997; GOB, 2005; Guja dhur, 2000; Tsing, Brosius & Zerner, 1999). CBNRMs main philosophy was built on the need fo r participation of local communities and their empowerment through the development pro cess with respect to natural resource use (Boggs, 2004; Rozemeijer & Van der Jagt, 2000; Mutandwa & Gadzirayi, 2007). Cornelissen (2005) asserts that, CBNRM holds that effec tive nature conservation can only take place if communities living adjacent to protected areas are included in management objectives and
62 programs and draw some benefit from protectio n schemes. (P. 23). The CBNRM framework is known to have its origins with the Zimbabw ean Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). It is noteworthy that the CA MPFIRE was created to allow rural communities to have rights to manage, rights to bene fits and rights of disposal of natural resource utilization in Zimbabwe (Child et al., 1997; Mutandwa & Gadzirayi, 2007; Maveneke, 2003). In Southern Africa, the CBNRM program was adopted to address the issue of environmental sustainability, resource management and justice (Child, 2004; Cornelissen, 2005). The region has comparable community conservation programs with relatively similar conservation and resource management princi ples (Hulme & Murphree, 2001). Yet, each individual countrys CBNRM program differs in formulation and implementation of projects. Botswanas CBNRM program was premised on th e idea that local popula tions have a greater interest in sustainable utilization of natural resources in their area (Boggs, 2004; GOB, 1990; Twyman, 2000). In Botswana, CBNRM was: founded on the premise that all members of th e community share an interest in improving their livelihoods whilst at the same time managing and using natural resources in a sustainable way. It is also founded on the prin ciple that all natural resources have an intrinsic value that can be realized for the benefit of society. In this context natural resources can be taken to include cultural resources. People who live closest to natural resources generally absorb the greatest costs associated with their conservation and have the most impact on those resources. Given th e proper public awarene ss and incentives they are most likely to successfully conserve and benefit from those natural resources within their environs. (GOB, 2005, p. 6) The CBNRM program initiative was designed to alleviate poverty and advance conservation by strengthening rural economies and empowering co mmunities to manage their resources for long term social, economic, and ecological benefits ( GOB, 2005). Furthermore, there was a quest that local communities should benefit directly and equitably from na tural resource management; be granted the rights to utilize resources; and determin e the mode of use and distribution of benefits
63 (Adam & Hutton, 2007; Armitage, 2005; Arnt zen at al., 2003; Boggs, 2004; GOB, 2005). Armitage (2005) and Hulme & Murphree (2001) posit that CBNRM has been viewed as a mechanism to address environmental, social and economic goals which intended to strike a balance between exploitation and conservation of natural resources. Since its adoption in Botswana, CBNRM, through the formation and us e of Community-Based Organization (CBO) has become an instrumental tool for rural communities. It provides a forum for rural communities to negotiate their interest, problems, goals, and aspirations in a democratic and participatory manner (Arntzen et al., 2003; Ashley & Jones, 2005; Mulale, 2005). The Botswana CBNRM program is st rongly connected to community-based tourism/ecotourism. Under the CBNRM program, ru ral or local communities are encouraged and required to form community-based organizations (CBOs), from which they can collectively collaborate to establish community owned touris m-related enterprises or projects (Ashley & Jones, 2005; Boggs, 2004; GOB, 2000). The CBOs (a lso called Trusts in Botswana) are: entities formed by a community, groups of communities, or groups within communities that are involved in the management of na tural resources, to represent the communitys natural resources management related interests and implement any management decisions taken. It is comprised of all members of th at community as defined above. (GOB, 2005, p. 3) In Botswana, CBNRM CBOs activities are not permitted to operate inside National Parks, except in the buffer zone. The buffer zones ar e designated as Wildlife Management Areas (WMA3), and are further subdivided into smaller units referred to as Controlled Hunting Areas (CHAs) (Figure 1-3). The WMAs and CHAs ar e multiple resources use areas in which sustainable utilization of natural and cultural re sources are emphasized. Sust ainable use refers to appropriate consumption of resour ces in a way not to deplete them. As such, controlled tourism 3 WMAs are areas reserved by the government for wildlife us es. In these areas major land uses permitted are consumptive or non consumptive wildlife utili zation. These areas are situated on the buffer zones of protected areas they act as buffer for conflicting land uses and as migrat ory corridors for wildlife (GOB, 2000).
64 activities are permitted in WMAs, but agricultura l practices with large pastoral and arable farming are not allowed (BTDP, 2000; GOB 1975; 1986; GOB, 2007; Totolo & Toteng, 1998). The various land uses and wild life activities permitted include photographic safaris (Appendix B), filmmaking, game ranching game viewing and controlled trophy hun ting (GOB, 2001; 2002; Johnson, 1996; MLP, 1999). Thus, WMAs play a signi ficant role in ensuring that preservation and protection of wildlife resources is main tained in Botswana (Atlhopheng & Totolo, 1998; GOB, 2000; Totolo & Toteng, 1998). In Botswana and Namibia, CBNRM is rega rded to have the potential to strengthen community rights, to manage and benefit from a wide range of natura l and cultural resources (Arntzen et al., 2003). The success stories include the ability of rural co mmunities to establish CBOs and initiate community-owned tourism enterprises. Community owned and operated projects contribute to infrastruc tural development and the provision of social services in the rural areas (Arntzen et al., 2003; Ashley & Elliot, 2003; Mbaiwa 2003). However, some studies (Arntzen et al., 2003; Flyman, 2001; MLG, 2003; Moswete et al., 2009b) have highlighted a lack of meaningful participation and involvement of the local people in tourism which occur in their areas; more monetary benefits that accrue fr om private safari operators (Mbaiwa, 2003; Maveneke, 2003; Swatuk, 2005; Tayl or, 2007), and lack of community capacity to manage tourism-related projects or businesses (Bond, 2001; Cocks & Grundy, 2006; Maveneke, 2003; Taylor, 2007). Generally, CBNRM projects in bu ffer zones have been successful in Botswana (Arntzen et al., 2003; Boggs, 2004; Buswani et al., 2008; Mbaiwa, 2008; Thakadu, 2006) and Namibia (Ashley, Mdoe & Reynolds, 2002). Ecotourism Ecotourism has been defined in various ways (Australian Commonwealth Department of Tourism, 1994; Buckley, 1994; Cock & Pfueller, 2000; Fennel, 1999; Holden, 2003, Honey,
65 1999; Drumm & Moore, 2002; Page & Dowli ng, 2002; Sproule & Subandi, 1998). Honey 1999 defines ecotourism as travel to fragile, pristine, and usually protected areas that strives to be low impact and [usually] small scale. It helps educ ate the traveler; provides funds for conservation; directly benefits the economic development a nd political empowerment of local communities, and fosters respect for different cu ltures and for human rights (p. 25). Most definitions of ecotourism share almost all of these elements (Cock & Pfueller, 2000; Drumm & Moore, 2002; Fennel, 2003; Honey, 1999; Holden, 2000; Weaver, 2005). Others emphasize that ecotourism relates to nature, particul arly national parks, game and nature reserves (Akama, 1996; BTB, 2008; Cater, 1997; Cock & Pfueller, 2000; Honey, 2008; Khama, 1997; Weaver, 2005). Although Fennel (199 9) excludes cultural elements from the definition of ecotourism, Cater (1994) posited th at culture must be recognized as an important role in ecotourism, and that natural and cultural la ndscapes cannot be separated. Caldwell (1996) and Weaver (2003) further argue that most natural landscapes have so me cultural influences based on their historical evolution. Culture and nature are intertwined in the concept of ecotourism and needs to be recognized respectively. Ecotourism has also been described as a continuum and has been classified as soft to hard, shallow to deep, and low to high sustainability (Holden, 2000). In addition, ecotourism is regarded as a spectrum of products or resource s (Lindberg, 2001) and is equated with nature tourism (Honey, 1999; Weaver, 2001). The diffe rence seems to surf ace between the two concepts of nature tourism vs. ecotourism because of the claims that ecotourism is educational, culturally sensitive and sustainable (Fennell, 200 3; Weaver, 2001). Also, motivations of people who choose to participate in ecotourism have been found to differ from nature tourism visitors (Weaver, 2005). In nature-based tourism, the ma in motivation is to enjoy nature and not
66 necessarily about conservation and learning. The motivation for ecotourism is to learn and establish contact with the host communities for a cultural expe rience (Caldwell, 1996; Orams, 1995; Page & Dowling, 2002). The key principles of suitability, sustainability, cultural sensitivity, education and responsibility have led to ecotourisms recognition as a prominent tool for resolving socio-economic concerns of de stination communities (C ock & Fueller, 2000; Hiwasaki, 2006; Honey, 1999; Kiss, 2004; Gossling, 1999; Gray, 2002; Weaver, 2001). Ecotourism is considered to be a better ma nagement tool, which alleviates the negative effects of mass tourism (Coc k & Pfueller, 2000; Gossling, 19 99; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003; Honey, 1999). Mass tourism is characterized by larg e numbers of people seeking replication of their own culture in institutionali zed setting, with little cultural or environm ental interaction in authentic settings (Kotze, 2002, p. 54). From this exposition, thes e two forms of tourism are dissimilar, as ecotourism tends to take place in unfamiliar surroundings, involves travelers who seek challenging encounters with the cultural and natural environments of destinations (Fennell, 2003; Weaver, 2005). Unlike ecotourism, mass t ourism involves travelers who search for familiar, confortable and non-challenging adventur es. In mass tourism, satisfaction of economic goals is essential in th e short term, but it is likely to be harmful to the social, economic and environmental fabric of most countries in the long term (Holden, 2000; Honey, 1999). Orams, (2001) also asserts that ecotourism is not the answer to the problems caused by nature-based tourism, but the concept has value in itself. Several studies, past and pr esent, portray ecotourism as the best segment of the tourism industry wh en compared to traditional mass tourism (Cock & Pfueller, 2000; Hall, 2000; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003). Ecotourism has the potential to protect and conserve natural and cultural environments because it often involves small scale developmen ts; small group activities and has generally low
67 impact on the environment (Brohman, 1996; Sche yvens, 1999; Telfer, 2002). As such, it can be equated with environmental sustainability (Honey, 1999; Tsaur et al., 2006; Vincent & Thompson, 2002). Yet, it is important to note that if the negative effects of ecotourism are not properly managed, the natural and cultural resources on which the industry depends can be adversely affected (Cock & Pfueller, 2000). Fo r example, uncontrolled tourism has led to increased pressure on natural resources such as timber for constructi on of tourists lodging facilities in many developing countries. In Saga rmatha (Everest) National Park in Nepal over utilization of natural resources has been evident due to increased tourism (Sofield, 2000). It is worthy of note that not all socalled ecotourism leaves the environment unharmed for example, uncontrolled ecotourism can be destructive because it can enable ecotourists to penetrate further afield, exploring natural areas which could not otherwise have been accessed, thus, exposing them to recreation pressure and damage (C ock & Pfueller 2000; Fe nnell, 1999; Weaver, 2005). Ecotourism has also become a tool for economic development and environmental protection in many developing na tions (Brennan & Allen, 2001; St ronza, 2007). If it is to be beneficial and sustainable, local communities should be allowed to reap a substantial amount of the socio-economic benefits generated by the industry. In Zanzibar, ecotourism has been recognized as one of the best alternatives to minimize problems associated with other types of tourism (Khatib, 2000). Problems incurred by un controlled tourism in Zanzibar included environmental degradation, acculturation and econo mic leakage (money generated as entry fees at Parks and reserves were not reinvested into the community). Also, the lack of involvement of the residents in villages that surround the Jozani Forest Rese rve had led to misunderstanding between the government and people over natu ral resource use (Khatib, 2000). Similarly,
68 ecotourism has been identified as an alternat ive option of economic growth in Botswana (Botswana Review, 2005; GOB 2000; 2005; WTTC, 2007). Community-Based Ecotourism CBE has witnessed inc reased growth as many pe ople are interested in cultural traditions and natural environments different from th eir own (Eagles & McCool, 2000; Law, 1993; Robinson, 2001; Rogerson & Viser, 2002; Shackle y, 1998; Zeppel, 1991). The number of people participating in the outdoors has been growing pa rticularly in ecotourism, including soft and hard adventure activities (Eag les et al., 2002; Page & Dowling, 2002). But, the concept of CBE is studied in some parts of the globe, including countr ies in Africa. It is noted that ample work has been conducted in Latin America (Avial Foucat 2004; Haase, 2004; Stem et al., 2003; Timothy & White, 1999) and the Asia-Pacific regions (Cock & Pfueler, 2000). One of the key principles of CBE is involve ment of resident comm unities living adjacent to protected areas and to e nhance their income (BTB, 2008; Chanda, Totolo, GOB, 2003; Moleele et al., 2002; Timothy, 1999) CBE may also help rural residents to refrain from agricultural dependence as they be come more aware of alternativ e economic activities, such as community-owned game farming or sustainable collection of forest resources that can complement and supplement the agricultural sector (Ashley, 2000; Barnes, 2001b). Also, Lindberg (2001) discovered that local communities who participate in CBE and receive tangible benefits tend to become cautious in their use of natural resources, th erefore more likely to support tourism and conservation. An example of community-based ecotour ism that has changed lives is noted below: In the Philippines the fishermen used to use explosives to catch fish, an act which savaged the beautiful co ral reefs. Now, international aid agencies have taught them that they can gain more money giving boat trips to visitors who wish to see the coral. So now they savage the bank accounts of th e tourists rather than coral. ( www.news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/talking_point/ ).
69 In Bigodi, Uganda Lepp (2004) uncovered that tourism provided basic needs such as improved housing, education, jobs as well as cohesiveness and prid e amongst the residents. Yet, problems and challenges that hampered further to urism development included external measures which were beyond the local communities control. Also, ecotourism activities that occur in and around protected areas generated substantial re venue to the national economy and to local communities (Lepp, 2004; Mugisha, 2002). In Botswa na, nearly 70% of all jobs in the northern national parks and game reserves are attributab le to tourism and/or community-based tourism (BTDP, 2000; Botswana Review, 2005). In Namibi a, local residents established conservancies which offered them conditional user rights ove r wildlife (Ashley, 2000). Local communities became involved in tourism development by formi ng small scale tourism-related enterprises (e.g. campsite, craft-shop). They were also involve d in CBE businesses by engaging in a joint venture4 agreement with tourism investors who in tu rn helped them to operate the business. According to Ashley (2000), CBE is a reflection of a success story about conservation and rural tourism in Namibia, and it is recognized by the government. Conversely, there are also failure s in CBE due to varying resour ce availability as well as management plans and policies (Caldicott & Fuller, 2005; Fulle r, Buultjens & Cummings, 2005; Gray, 2002). However, well managed CBE can rest ore degraded rangelands, revive cultures, protect and preserve endangered species of fauna and flora, reduce resource conflicts, and improve the living standards of rural communities (Ashley, 2000; Avila Foucat, 2002; Flyman, 2001; Lindberg, 2001; Mbaiwa, 20 08; Nyaupane & Thapa, 2004; Rozemeijer, 2001). In the Ololosokwan community of northern Tanzania, lo cal communities of Lake Natron (Pinyinyi & 4 A joint venture requires a community and a private company to work together, sharing the risks and responsibility of a joint enterprise. It generally offers a community more decision-making power and training. (Jagt & Rozemeijer, 2002, p. 39).
70 Engare Sero) have not benefited from ecotourism ac tivities due to a lack of information about the industry and empowerment at th e village level. Tourism only benefited the non-local tour operators while the residents were found to have had limited knowledge to facilitate ecotourism ventures (Campbell, 1999; Nelson, 2004). However, CBE has contributed toward diversification of northern Tanzanias touris m industry through infrastructura l developments and community incomes. CBE is described and practiced as sustainable tourism (Boyd & Timothy, 2001; Butler, 1998; Fennell, 2003; Hall, 2000; Honey, 1999; Kh an, 1997; Luck & Kirstges, 2003; Murphy, 1985; Faulker, Moscardo & Laws, 2001; Vincent & Thompson, 2002; Weaver, 2001), and is premised on the following principles: Greater local community participation and involvement. Provide a framework for raisi ng the living standards of lo cal people through the economic benefits of tourism. More benefits accrue to host communities. Comprehensive planning. More consultative and democratic planning. Small scale and less negative impacts. Tourism development which maintains ecological integrity of the landscapes. Allow only tourism types that have low environmental impacts. Commitment to environmental protection and conservation of natural resources. Building cultural awareness and respect as well as ensuring that activities are socioculturally appropriate Raise awareness to countriespolitical and, social and cultural climate. Empowers the local community as it promotes the use of indigenous knowledge, material and labour, and provides the opportunity for the local population to generate economic benefits from tourism.
71 It is noteworthy that the CBE has much in common with community-based tourism (CBT), which is defined as more sustainable form of development than conventional mass tourism because it allows host communities to break away from the hegemonic grasp of tour operators and the oligopoly of wealthy elites at the national level (Sharpley & Telfer, 2002, p.150). CBT is typified by tourism initiatives that are ow ned by one or more commun ities, or run as joint venture partnerships with the private sector wi th equitable community participation, as a means of using natural resources in a sustainable manne r to improve their standard of living in an economic and viable way (GOB, 2005, p. 5). Both in itiatives involve enterprises that are wholly owned by local communities and are inherently less dependent on foreign suppliers. The smallscale community initiatives are resident owned, managed and operated, and the benefits accrue to the local community (Hiw asaki, 2006; Khan, 1997; Luck & Kirstges, 2003; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008; Timothy, 1999). The key difference is that CBE and/or ecotourism is offered strictly in the natural environment, and it inte grates the dimensions of cultural landscapes (McKercher & Du Cros, 2002; Lawton & Weaver, 2001) as part of the product, whereas CBT can also be urban-base d (Blackstock, 2005). Success Stories of CBE Community-Based Project in the Ta National Park, C te DVoire (Africa) Ta National Park is UNESCOs biosphere re serve and a W orld Heritage site in C te DVoire, Africa. This park is popular among touris ts due to its unique species of chimpanzees. Communities have initiated and established co mmunally-owned and operated CBE enterprises. Facilities that are owned and operated by residents include a 20-bed capacity reception center, a restaurant and bar for tourists have been built at the Ta National Park. Livelihood improvements included creation of jobs, income generation and support for conservation practices by the local communities adjacent to the Park (Bako, cited in Jordan, 2002, p. 46).
72 Village Tourism Program, Senegal (Africa) Village tourism program was established in th e 1970s in Senegal in order to diversify tourism, which was mainly built on beach resort s and urban hotels. The program was earmarked for local people. Collectively, th rough external help they buil t tourist accommodations (built camps) with traditional and local materials. Th e project was funded by Canadian and French bilateral aid Agencies (Buckley, 2003). Four camps were establishe d for tourists. Visitors enjoy the living local culture and traditions. All proj ect management was conducted by the community and revenues generated through tourism helped to wards building village owned health center, youth center, school, craft business outlets. New lo cal jobs were created which reduced ruralurban migrations by youths. This village tourism model has grown and been replicated in other regions (Buckley, 2003; WTO, 1999 cited in Jordan, 2002, p. 40). Babe National Park, Vietnam (Asia) In Vietnam, community-based conservation and ecotourism projects have been reported to have brought positive changes to the lives of local people, speci fically, among those who reside in and around protected areas. The Babe National Park is a good example, as local residents have developed CBE projects and progra ms that have generated income and improved employment opportunities. Resident s have built homestays, walki ng trails and restaurants for tourists, and revenue generated from these faci lities and services accrue for the community. Improved community conservation of park resources especially wildlife and forest resources have been reported (Rihawi, cited in Jordan, 2002, p. 43). Sankuyo Community Development Trust, Ngamiland, Botsw ana (Africa) When CBNRM programs were introduced in Botswana in the 1980s, many communities joined hands and created community-based or ganizations (CBO) popularly known as Trust. Many CBOs were involved in wildlife-related tour ism (Mulale, 2005), while a few ventured in
73 culture-based activities. Sa nkuyo community is a good model for community-based ecotourism via CBNRM CBOs in Botswana. It is a farming community (arable and small stock agriculture) which also engages in the coll ection of veldt resources for subsistence. Local residents established a CBO referred to as Sankuyo Tshwar agano Management Trust in 1995. Since then, they have operated a joint venture partnership in safari hunting with a private opera tor in two Controlled Hunting Areas (NG33 and NG 34) for commercial hunting and photographic activities. The joint venture pa rtnership benefits includes: in creased employment opportunities, income, game meat, sanitary facilities, social capital, tran sportation, reduced rural-urban migration and improved Sankuyo village image, a nd above all reduced illegal hunting of wild animals (Arntzen et al., 2003; Mb aiwa, 2008; Thakadu et al., 2006). Stakeholder Participation Community-based ecotourism development encourages stakeholder participation, especially among local residents, tourists and resource administration (Ross & Wall, 1999; Vincent & Thompson, 2002). Participation is a process through which all stakeholders influence and share control over developm ent initiatives and the decisions and resources which affects them (Gray, 2002). Stakeholder pa rticipation also refers to local peoples involvement as resource managers and not resource users. Local participation has recently been identified and promoted as an essential strategy used to resolve issues of development, planning and management of communal resources (Child, 2009; Gray, 2002; Fraser, Dougill, Mabee et al., 2006; Mulale, 2005; Moswete et al., 2009b; Spenceley, 2008; Scheyvens, 1999; Tosun & Timothy, 2003; Tosun, 2006). Community participation is an essential component of sustainable ecotourism/CBE, and has received much atten tion in the natural re source management and tourism literature (Stem et al., 2003). Wall (1996) noted that, the ability of local people to participate in decisions which affect them depends upon access to power, resources and
74 knowledge.(p.134). CBNRM literature demonstrates that stakeholders especially; residents participation in natural res ource management, including community-based tourism (CBT) can guide sustainable natural reso urce utilization (Fraser et al., 2006; Mulale, 2005; Rozemeijer, 2000; 2009; Thakadu et al ., 2006; Twyman, 2000). Local community participation has been used extensively in developing countries in sectors such as agriculture, health and in frastructure (Dei, 2000; Tosun, 2006). From a geographical perspective, partic ipatory processes have focused mainly on the use of indigenous or local knowledge to identify and manage natural resources (Phuthego & Chanda, 2004; Velimpini & Perkins, 2008). Basically, unless the communities are given an opportunity to participate in the development of interventions designed to improve their livelihoods, they will continue to lack the benefits (Child, 2009; Faulker et al ., 2001; Himoonde, 2007; Manwa, 2003; Moswete et al., 2009a; Murphy, 19 85; Mutandwa & Gadzirai, 2007 ; Pretty, 1995; Rozemeijer, 2009; Spenceley, 2008; Swarbrooke, 1999; Shac kley, 1998; Scheyvens 1999; Timothy, 1999; Tosun, 2006). Also, resources will continue to declin e unless local people are actively involved and participate meaningfully in conservation (F raser et al., 2006; Muta ndwa & Gadzirai, 2007). Meaningful participation in planning and ma nagement of activities that involve local communities are essential (Government of S outh Australia (GOSA), 1991; Robinson, 2001; McGurk, Sinclair & Diduck, 2006). According to McGurk et al. (2006), meaningful public participation includes equitable representation from diverse ac tors, deliberative involvement techniques permitting long term dialogue, involvement collaborative problem solving (p. 810). Ensuring community participation in the de velopment of local plans and strategies will help them to keep informed with existing issu es in the region (Child, 2009; GOSA, 1991; Pretty, 1995; Tosun & Timothy, 2003; Tosun, 2006). Participation is important for identifying impacts,
75 especially for people who reside in an area propo sed for tourism development. However, it is important that all groups affected by or that will affect an initiative are identified and consulted for participation purposes. This is because stakeh older groups are diverse and therefore should be drawn from different sectors of a region, province or village (Byrd, 2003). Participation is also a process that bri ngs diverse stakeholders together (Byrd, 2003; Pretty, 1995; Thompson, Elmendorf, McDonough & Burban, 2005). Ecotourism stakeholders consist of groups such as state agencies, busin esses, national and local environmental groups, local leaders, church groups, local authorities, and residents (Wood, 2002, p. 33-38). From an ecotourism perspective, stakeholders ge nerally comprise of the following: Travel agents Outbound tour operators Inbound tour operators Communities Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) Government Ecolodge owners/managers Protected area managers The ecotourism stakeholders play a role in development, implementation and management of programs within communities. Local authorities regulate land use activities and infrastructure (Wood, 2002). Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) ar e also involved by providing assistance in the forma tion of projects, organization, coordination and facilitation of stakeholder meetings, community development, PA management and conservation initiatives. Local communities have a greater stake in ecotour ism development in their area; as such their participation is essential (Wood, 2002). Participation and involvement of different st akeholders in CBE is critical because they have different views and aspirations with respect to development in their regions (Garrod, 2003; Timothy, 1999). Local participation in all stages of planning and ex ecution of projects that occur
76 in their area is encouraged in all CBE init iatives (Avila Foucat, 2002; Garrod, 2003; Pretty, 1995; Timothy, 1998; Tosun, 2006). Planning has beco me an important component of CBE as the focus is involvement of all stakeholders (Ashley, 2000; Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). The international, national, regi onal and local planning of tourism is needed if CBE is to benefit all stakeholders (Eagles & McCool, 2000; Gunn, 1994; Inskeep, 1991; Page & Dowling, 2002). Yet, research has shown that local people are often under-represented as developers, planners and decision makers, because of the contention that they lack knowledge of tourism and the associated skills ( Blackstock, 2005). Over the year s, planning approaches have changed to emphasize a community approach which encourages and supports bottom-up participatory planning (Blackstoc k, 2005; Child, 2009; Jordan, 2002; Fraser et al., 2006; Tsaur, Lin & Lin, 2006). Ecotourism-related enterprises that have faile d have had problems with the lack of local communities involvement in management and planning of activities (Himoonde, 2007; Millar, 2006; Tosun, 2006; Tosun & Timothy, 2003). The reasons for failure have emanated due to the top-down system in which the local people were pa ssive receivers or acto rs (Aas et al., 2005; Fraser et al., 2006; Millar, 2006; Mulale, 2005; Shackley, 1998). Lack of early consultation and involvement in the first stage of a project, a nd lack of indigenous peoples involvement in planning and management have led to disastrous outcomes that have benefited outsiders and left the host communities poorer (Bass, Dalal-Cl ayton & Pretty, 1995; Fitton, 1996; Himoonde, 2007; Khan, 1997). Participation in decision making is a situati on in which local people determine their own goals for development and have a meaningful vo ice in the organization and administration of activities in their own regions (Bass et al., 1995; Child, 2009; Timothy, 2002). Also,
77 participation in planning and deci sion making can lead to better attitudes towards ecotourism and conservation among communities (Honey, 1999; Tosun, 2006). Local participation in community project initiatives increases an indi viduals sense of commitment and community (Child, 2009; Timothy, 2002). In addition, local partic ipation leads to benefits associated with leisure and community building through the devel opment of community as well as learning and developing new skills and an ability to influenc e change (Timothy, 2002). But, if ecotourism is to succeed as a viable form of sustainable development, the private sector, governments and NGOs all must cooperate to in clude local communities in th e development process (Wood, 2002, p.38). There are different levels of community i nvolvement such as, self mobilization which refers to a situation in which the local comm unities who may have accumulated capital from tourism strengthen and extend their activities (F rance, 1998; Van der Jagt, Gujadhur & Bussel, 2000). Self mobilized local communities are characterized by indepe ndent initiatives where local communities are empowered. France (1998) calls th is interactive participation which means that residents contribute to planning of ecotourism projects, while Tosun & Timothy (2003) contend that the resident communities often know their home environment better, and are likely to know what will work in local conditions. Local community participation makes people feel that they are part of the whole deve lopment that occurs in their area. Problems emerge when local communities (as stakeholders) are left out in the decision making process that involves tourism devel opment (Aas et. al., 2005; Akama & Sterry, 2002; Garrod, 2003; Scheyvens, 1999). Consequently, the relationship between tourism and management of cultural and natu ral resources presents challenges. Previous studies have recommended the importance of balancing conservation and development, while ensuring that
78 the needs and aspirations of th e local communities and visitors are met (Akama & Sterry, 2002). If tourism is carefully contro lled and collectively managed, it can present a strong basis for future economies of most destinations (Ga rrod, 2003; Scheyvens, 1999; UNESCO, 2003; Weiler & Witt, 1997; Shackley, 1998). Ecotourism related economic development can be expanded by incorporating cultural tourism (Keitumetse; Richards, 2007; Moswete et al., 2009b). The principles of cultural heritage tourism are similar to those of community-based ecotourism. Cultural heritage tourism becomes sustainable if it promotes and supports full invol vement and participation of local people in decision making with respect to management and sustainable utilization of their own heritage resources (Bakaye, 2007; Brandt & Mohamm ed, 1996; Briedenhann & Wickens, 2007; Cole, 2006; Garrod, 2003; Mabulla, 2000; McKercher & du Cros, 2002; Richards, 2007). Tosun and Timothy (2003) posit that, the more that commun ity residents benefit from tourism, the more likely they will protect the areas natural and cultural heritage and support tourism activities (p. 5). However, the empowerment framework is premised on the belief that local communities need to have some control over activit ies that affect them so that they can participate in decision making for CBE initiatives and choose the forms of ecotourism amenities and enterprises to invest in and benefit from (Campbell, 1999; Petric, 2007; Scheyvens, 1999; Sofield, 2003). Stakeholder Empowerment The concept of empowerment refers to the ability of the local communities to design and participate in the processes a nd events that shape their lives (UNDP, 1994). Members of a community become active agents of change and ha ve the ability to identify solutions to their problems, make decisions, implement actions and evaluate their solutions (Cole, 2006, p.631). Accordingly, empowerment is facilitated by participation, knowledge access to resources, training and education and social services (Akama, 1996; Arai, 1996; Child, 2004; Onyx &
79 Benton, 1995; Scheyvens, 1999; 2003; Sofield, 2003) Empowering local communities can be likened to giving the local people weapons (such as education) for survival. But, disempowering the communities occurs when they are not give n choices to offer input toward a proposed development (Arai, 1996; Fraser et al., 2006; Scheyvens, 2003) or rights to resource use (Child, 2004; 2009; Scheyvens, 2003). Recentl y, various studies have recomm ended the need for direct support, involvement, participation and empowerm ent of stakeholders, es pecially, those who are affected by or can affect a proposed idea or new undertaking (Aas et al., 2005; Akama, 1996; Brandon, 2007; Child, 2009; Cole, 2 006; Eagles et al., 2002; Fraser et al., 2006; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Nicholas, 2007; Mbaiwa, 2008; Mu lale, 2005; Onyx & Benton, 1995; Scheyvens, 1999; Sekhar, 2003). Ecotourism deals with grassroots empowerme nt as it seeks to de velop the industry in harmony with the needs and aspirations of host co mmunities in a way that is acceptable to them (Brandon, 1996; Garrod, 2003; Scheyvens, 1999; Woodwood, 1997). According to Sofield (2003), empowerment is about capacity by individuals or a group to determine their own affairs. (p.79). In principle, ecotourism is not detrimental to host cultures, traditions, or the peoples day-to-day activities. Instead, ecotourism has the ability to empower them politically, socially and economically (Honey, 2008; Scheyv ens, 1999). Local residents need to be empowered to enable them to mobilize their resources to obtain significant benefits from tourism development initiatives (Akama, 1996; Ch ilisa, 2000; Scheyvens, 1999; Sofield, 2003; Swarbrooke, 1999; Tosun, 2006). When outside control is turned ove r to local control, several benefits are evident. Some of the benefits are lo cal services and infrastructural development that could be utilized by both tourists and the lo cals (Barnes, 2008; Himberg, 2006; Relly, 2008; Scheyvens, 1999; Simpson, 2008; Spenceley, 2008; Tl efer &Sharpley, 2008). Other benefits that
80 local people can accrue if empowered are ec onomic: ownership of tourism enterprises, employment opportunities and capacity building (t raining and education) on ecotourism-related commerce (Ashley & Garland, 2001; Relly, 2008; Rozemeijer, 2009; Scheyvens, 1999; Simpson, 2008; Spenceley, 2008; Timothy, 2002; Tosun, 2006). Also, polit ical empowerment offers opportunities to raise questions and concerns that pertain to community-based ecotourism development initiatives in their region s (Himberg, 2006; Himoonde, 2007; Honey, 1999; Scheyvens, 1999; Tosun, 2006). Garrod (2003) further argues for psychological empowerment, which is interpreted as benefits that enable the resident communities to develop self esteem and pride in their own local cultures. Local involvement and empowerment in to urism-related development and planning is more favorable than a top-down approach, wher e decisions are imposed on the local population (Cole, 2006; Millar, 2006; Scheyvens, 1999; Shackley, 1998; Wells & Brandon, 1992;1993). Conversely, local communities who get involved in small-scale locally owned and controlled ecotourism enterprises benefit more than if a bus iness is controlled from outside their locality (Brohman, 1996; Cole, 2006; Honey, 1999; Sche yvens, 1999; Timothy, 2002). In Costa Rica, Griffin found that 70% of tourism enterprises were small-scale and citizen-owned (Griffin cited in Timothy, 2002). This positive approach in Costa Rica has instilled power in the locals to start their own small scale ecotourism-related enterprise s, and has also created more job opportunities for the general populace. By contrast, in Botswanas Okavango Delta region, 54% of tourism facilities are foreign owned and controlled, whilst only 18% are wholly owned by citizens. Foreign dominance of tourism in the Okavango re gion and Ngamiland district has contributed to xenophobia among local people because tourism is enjo yed by foreigners and other citizen elites (Mbaiwa, 2003).
81 Local empowerment and participation in t ourism development help s to reduce if not eliminate dependency on foreign companies and/or government, thus, reducing economic leakage from the host destination (Brohman, 19996, Fitton, 1996; Khan, 1996). Further, if the local communities are involved in tourism development initiatives, the level of participation in sustainable resource use is likely to increase. If given power to own and manage community projects, the people would develop a spirit of ownership and pride in absolute powers to decide communal initiatives on which to embark (Arai, 1996; Child, 2004; Hulme & Murphree, 2001; Maveneke, 2003; Mutandwa & Gadzirayi, 2007). Le pp (2004) contends that local communities that have control over their own resources, natural or cultural have helped to protect resources (wildlife) from unsustainable utilization. In Arizona and New Mexic o, Timothy (2002) found that the Hopi and Taos Indians own the community tourism trade. It was also found that these indigenous groups discouraged and c eased tourism activities in some of their sacred sites in order to protect them (Timothy, 2002). Th erefore, participatory approach to CBT and cultural heritage management has been found to be the best option to sustainable ecotourism development because of emphasis on empowerment in the management of local resources (Brandt & Mohammed, 1996; Garrod, 2003; Howard, 2003; Le pp, 2004; Mabulla, 2000; Nepal & Weber, 1995; Twyman, 2000). Empowerment of local resi dents to participate in ec otourism helps to broaden constituencies involved in decision making, improve dialogues to reduce conflicts over natural resource utilization among stakeholders (Van der Jagt et al., 2000). Also, empowerment of local people through training faci litates access to financial resource s and ownership of assets (Child, 2009; Petric, 2007). It is importa nt that a bottom-up approach to tourism development is considered if local communities are to benefit (Fraser et al., 2006; Young, 1999; Van der Jagt et
82 al., 2000). In Botswana, community empowerment is one of the key principles of the CBNRM development framework (GOB, 2003; 2007). Rura l communities are given rights to specific resource use and development, but not owners hip e.g. land (Buswani, Setllhogile, Arntzen & Potts, 2008; GOB, 2007; Mulale, 2005; Rozemeijer, 2009). However, the long term vision for Botswana (Vision 2016) emphasizes the need for citizen empowerment, and maximum participation in all spheres of national and loca l development, including rural tourism-related projects. Protected Area Management A protected area (PA) is de fined as an area dedicated primarily to the protection and enjoyment of natural or cultural heritage, to main tenance of biodiversity, and/or to maintenance of ecological life-support se rvices (IUCN, 2001, p. 15) Historically, PAs were established with conservation and preservation of natural resources (wildlife, habitat, natural landscape, cultural heritage) as the main goal, but has evolved to accommodate tourism development (Bolaane, 2004; Child, 1970; Child, 2009; Campbell, 1973; Ea gles, McCool & Haynes, 2002). In other instances, people were relocated outside the boundaries of some PAs. For example, in Africa, 500 people were forcibly relocated from the Nechas ar National Park of Ethiopa in 2004 (Adams & Hutton, 2006), while in early 1960s, San/Basa rwa were removed from the Moremi Game reserve of Botswana for natural re source conservation (Bolaane, 2004). PAs differ in size, structure and composition, and each country has different goals and objectives for allocation of land for protection (Carruthers, 2009; Eagl es et al., 2002; Soto, 2009). Also, the history of PAs depi cts differences in their status and these areas are conserved as national parks; game reserves; nature reserv es; forest reserves; marine reserves, biosphere reserves, wilderness areas, or World Heritage Sites (Boyd & Timothy, 2001; Eagles et al., 2002; IUCN, 2001). The management objectives of PAs include but are not limited to the following:
83 scientific research, wilderness protection, preservation of biodiv ersity, education, tourism and recreation (Eagles et al., 2002, p. 11). Presently, PAs act as a haven for recreation act ivities that generate economic benefits for local communities (Buckley, 2003; Eagles et al., 2002; Hiwasa ki, 2006). They have become tourism attractions in themselves and are gl obally marketed (Boyd & Timothy, 2001). National Parks are often referred to as markers, because a PA gets a label that functions as a marker, which shapes perception of the area and ultimat ely triggers visitations to the specific place (Reinius & Fredman, 2006, p. 852). International tourists have become more attracted or motivated to visit destinations because of their protection stat us (Boyd & Timothy, 2001; Eagles & McCool, 2000). Thus, the status of a PA motivat es tourists to visit fo r recreation and tourism (Resinous & Fredman, 2006). The history of nationa l parks and reserves in Botswana has largely focused on conservation of biodive rsity with a greater concern fo r the local people living on the periphery of the areas (Campbell, 1973; Child, 1970). Local farmers experience the cost in terms of competition on forage between wildlife and livestock (Moleele & Maina, 2003). The creation of PAs has alienated or distanced resident communiti es living closer to national parks from access to resources (Boyd & Timothy, 2001; Mayor al-Phillips, 2002). In some instances, the local people have been forcibly relocated outsi de Parks for conservation purposes (Bolaane, 2004; Child, 2004). In general, and in other coun tries, local communitie s who live adjacent to PAs have not been allowed in or invited to pa rticipate in park-based tourism and conservation activities (Himoonde, 2007; Meskell, 2005; Nelson, 2004). Lack of participation and involvement of local communities in decision maki ng and management of resources in PAs have caused conflicts between the Park manageme nt and local communities (Bauer, 2003; Brandon, 2007; Himoonde, 2007; Parry & Campbell, 1992; Roe & Hollands, 2004). Collectively, PAs are
84 faced with myriad financial, socio-economic and environmental challenges as managers attempt to strike a balance between conservation, povert y alleviation and tourism development (Child, 2004; 2009; Eagles et al., 2002, Lawton, 2001; Wells & Brandon, 1992; 1993). Case studies of PAs reveal that some have generated environm ental and socio-economic benefits (see Table 22), yet borne costs as well (Child, 2009: Eagles et al., 2002; Roe & Hollands, 2004). Stakeholders, especially local community support for conservation initiatives or protection of protected areas is essential to the advancement of park-based tourism and/or ecotourism (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Bra ndon, 2007; Baral & Heinen, 2007; Gadd, 2005; Manwa, 2003; Spiteri & Nepal, 2008). There are many different groups of stakeholders in PAbased tourism and the ecotourism industry. Each gr oup of stakeholder plays a different role and have own values and objectives in a project or organization (Eag les et al., 2002; Mitchell et al., 1997). Stakeholder groups who woul d generally be influential in the daily management of the PA include but are not limited to (Eagles et al., 2002, p. 48): Park planners and managers Local community Park employees Park visitors Government ministries Non-governmental Organizations Environmental groups Tour operators Research bodies Media Hospitality industry. Planners are facing challenge s regarding ways in which di fferent stakeholder can be involved in tourism planning, conservation and management worldwide (Timothy & Boyd, 2006). Currently, PA managers and planners have begun to recognize and appreciate the importance of involving residents communities in the general management and development of
85 Parks (Buckley, 2003; Eagles & McCool, 2000; McCleave, Espiner & Booth, 2006). The needs and aspirations of PA stakeholders are diverse, therefore establishing pa rtnerships between PAs and local communities or other management agencies can provide benefits for both. Such partnerships can open oppor tunities for full local participation and involvement in the PA general management and tourism planning and developm ent (Eagles et al., 2002 ; McCleave et al., 2006; Page & Dowling, 2002; Timothy & Boyd, 2006). Resident Attitudes Residents Attitudes toward Tourism In the last few decades, extensiv e resear ch has been conducted about residents perception and attitudes toward s tourism and the level of tourism development in varying destination communities and geographical areas, especially in the developed world where tourism has had a significant impact on th e local economy (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Banks, 2003; Brown, Turner, Hameed & Bateman, 1997 ; Gursoy et al., 2002; Long et al., 1991; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue et al., 1990). Local resi dents support for tourism is vital to the development of a successful tourism industry (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Harrill, 2004; Jurowski, 1994; Ko & Stewart, 2002; McGe hee & Andereck, 2004; Pennington-Gray, 2005; Sikaraya, Teye & Sonmez, 2007). Generally, residents perceived t ourism as a viable industry that brings life to their towns and villages (Allen, Hafer, Long & Perdue, 1993; Jurowski, 1994); however differences in the way different communities perceive tourism also exist (Andereck & Vogt, 2000). For example, the length of residence and connectedness with the community influenced positive perceptions and support for tourism development. Sikaraya et al. (2002) noted that positive attitudes were linked with increase in recreation and other re lated benefits (jobs, income). Pennington-Gray (2005) found that social and environmental impa cts of tourism led to increased support for
86 tourism development in the community. However, in other studies, residents held negative attitudes toward tourism because of environmental degradation and social i lls associated with its advancement in their localitie s (Brown et al., 1997; Langfor d, 1994). In addition, empirical research has also assessed factors that contri bute to support. The factors generally examined include demographics, employme nt, distance/proximity, environmental concern, participation, community attachment and knowledge (Andriotis, 2005; Durrant & Durrant, 2008; Gursoy et al., 2002; Ko & Stewart, 2002; McCool & Martin, 1994). A number of studies have been conduc ted to examine the relationships between community awareness and resident perception and support for tourism development (Dallen, Allen & Cosenza, 1988; Jurowski et al., 1997; Gu rsoy et al., 2002; Sikara ya et al., 2002). The key objective for the relationship was based on th e notion that their pe rceptions of tourism development may be influenced if residents le vel of awareness of the tourism industry is high (Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski et al., 2006; Sikaraya et al., 20 07). Residents who accrued more socio-economic benefits from tourism tended to have a high level of knowledge about the industry; hence, a strong suppor t existed in favor for tourism related development in their communities (Jurowski, 1994; Sikaraya et al., 2002). Conversely, people who have knowledge about tourism as a business and obtain economic benefits from it had negative perceptions (perceived cost), and opposed further tourism development (Banks, 2003). Also, residents with knowledge about the tourism industr y and its role would identify co sts associated with benefits (Harrill, 2004). Similarly, Nicholas (2007) found that community attachment had a significant direct relationship with both support for Pitons Management Area as a World Heritage Site and sustainable tourism development in St. Lucia. The positive relationships were influenced by the
87 fact that residents were born and raised in their respective communities and they indicated significant levels of attachment to their community (Nicholas, 2007, p.194). A few researchers have conducted studies on local community perspectives on ecotourism development (Himberg, 2006; Himo onde, 2007; Jim & Xu, 2002; Lai & Nepal, 2006; Tsaur, Lin, & Lin., 2006; Stem, Lassoie, Lee et al., 2003). Overall, it has been reported that local communities were regularly neglected a nd/or not even invited to participate in the decision-making and management of resources for tourism (Himoonde, 2007; Stem et al., 2003; Tsaur et al., 2006). However, when local comm unities are consulted or informed about developments that affect them, Sika raya et al. (2002) revealed that, when attempts are made to solicit community input into tourism plans or projects, the public event is ill rushed, invitations are exte nded mostly to the educated and professional segments of the community, and the proceed ings are conducted in English, thereby excluding the vast majority of the population who speak the local Fanti language. (p. 65) The literature denotes that ge nerally there is a lack of re sidentssupport for traditional tourism development and participation especially in destinations where it is heavily developed (Banks, 2003; Sikaraya et al ., 2002; Teye et al., 2002). Cons equently, researchers have highlighted the need, importance and urgency for all stakeholder involveme nt and participation in matters that relates to tourism development (Aas et al., 2005; Byrd, 2007; Byrd et al., 2008; Himoonde, 2007; Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Meskell, 2005; Molale, 2005; Nicholas, 2007; Sikaraya et al., 2002; Yuksel et al., 1999). Residents Attitudes toward Protected areas (PAs) Myriad adverse impacts of tourism on th e environment have le d to the advent of conservation strategies for natural resources ma nagement in the developing world. Conservation is defined as the management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and
88 aspirations of future generations (Beder (1993 p. xiii). Conservation re lates to sustainable utilization of common resources by which stakehol der participation, especi ally local people are encouraged in order to obtain equitable benefits and to ensure responsible use (Ewert, Dieser & Voigt, 1999; Manning, 1999; Swinnerton 1999; Walker, 1996). However, many PAs have suffered destruction of the natural and cultural environment (Brandon, 2007, Bauer, 2003). For example, a growth in visitor numbers to PAs means an increased disruption of community traditional livelihood activities which can aff ect the resources and the local people. In many instances, conflict has emanated from competition of resource use by various parties. Conflicts have been documented between local residents and government's conservation policies (Baral & Heinen, 2007; Bauer, 2003). In South Africa, Kotze (2002) found that the eastern side of Golden Gate Highlands National Park (GGHNP) had lost its naturalness due to unlawful and uncontrolled harvesting of grass and wood by the local residents living along the park boundary. Littering from picnickers was also found to be problematic. In Botswana, the implementation of game policy on the San of Khwai led to increased illegal hunting in Moremi Game Reserve (Bolaane, 2004). These problems cut across rural communities in developing countries, especially where huge portions of land have been designated for conserva tion and ecotourism-related activities. Human-wildlife conflict is also a major issue in conservation in developing countries. As rural communities encroach into natural areas, th e conservation efforts to restore wildlife areas to limit contact between people and wild animals gr ow (Barnes, 2008; Bauer, 2003; Bolaane, 2004; Gadd, 2005). Conflicts over resource use arise when several interest groups compete for limited resources. For instance, governments may view a game reserve or national park as a wildlife habitat where wildlife is to be protected and preserved. However, rural communities adjacent to
89 protected areas may view wildlife and other forest resources as rightfully their own (Bolaane, 2004; Meskell, 2005; Nelson, 2000; 2004), and may need to be allowed to hunt and gather food freely (Bolaane, 2004). In 1963, the San/Basarwa of Khwai were re located from Botswanas Moremi Game Reserve and resettled at the north gate of th e reserve (Bolaane, 2004; Mbaiwa, 2003). This action denied them rights of access to traditional land and resources, consequently, affecting their traditional hunting and gathering lifestyles. Th ese challenges have caused continuous disputes between wildlife conservation, resource managers a nd tourism developers. This also resulted in increased resentment of tourism and increase d illegal hunting of wild animals by the local residents of Khwai since they were not allowe d to hunt and gather natural resources (Wild animals and forest foods) (Mbaiwa, 2003; Tayl or 2007). Hunting and gathering are not permitted in protected areas in Botswana (GOB, 1986; 1992). Thus, game reserve policy and other wildlife hunting restrictions have advers ely affected the Khwai community in many ways including their spiritual and religious practices using certain wildlife species, as well as other economic and socio-cultural activitie s (Bolaane, 2004; Mbai wa, 2003; Taylor, 2007). In Kenya, the Maasais large landholdings were taken by the government, and state protected game parks were established including t ourism facilities and infrastructure. This forced the Maasai tribes to re locate to the unfertile areas of th e country (Akama, 1996; 1999). This act by the government brought considerable distaste and suffering as their traditional livelihoods were adversely affected in the name of conserva tion and tourism. History reveals that the Maasai are traditionalists whose live lihood revolves around cattle farm ing. Like many Africans, the number of cattle in their culture symbolizes wealth, and th e Maasai traditionally lived on blood and milk as part of their major staple food. Akama (1999) notes that:
90 [T]he Maasai are often in severe persistent and accelerating conflicts with park wildlife over grazing and water resources. This social and economic scenario has been accentuated by state tourism and wildlife policies which focus narrowly on the protection of park wildlife for foreign tourists w ithout any involvement of the M aasai in the management and utilization of these resources. (p. 716) Recently, Lepps (2007) study in Bigodi village, Uganda revealed some positive attitudes about tourism. He stated that, positive attitudes were connected to the belief that tourism creates community development, opportunities for earning income, improved agricultural markets, and a chance at good fortune (p.883). Nevertheless, fa rmers who lived on the border of Kibale National Park noted that crop damage by wild animals were their main concern, instead of tourism (Lepp, 2007). In northern Botswana, some rural communities have developed negative attitudes toward wild animals (Bolaane, 2004; Mordi, 1987; Parry & Cam pbell, 1992), yet some of them have derived socio-economic benefits from safari-based touris m (Arntzen et al., 2003; Barnes, 1995; Bell, 1991; Mbaiwa, 2008; Sel by, 1991, Thakadu et al., 2005). Wild animals damage peoples property such as crops, kill livestock, contribute to loss of human life, destroy vegetation around fields/farms; yet, local communities have no control over wildlife-related resources. In the majority of cases, compensa tions for damage are negligible or nonexistent (Gadd, 2005; Meskell, 2005; Manwa, 2003; Mutandwa & Gadzirayi, 2007). Globally, protected area strategies and lo cal communities resource utilization and management vary. Studies have shown that, of ten times, residents do not fully understand the potential political, social, economic, and e nvironmental impacts that can result from inappropriate use of non-renewable resources (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Sikaraya et al., 2002; Walker, 1996). Local communities adjacent to protected areas in the developing world, including Botswana are faced with many challenge s regarding access to natu ral resources inside PAs and conservation policies. However, govern ments and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have been working with communities in di fferent regions to deve lop ecotourism or CBE
91 projects in PAs to benefit rural communities an d conserve the environment (Walker, 1996). But, there is a need for governments to use the right channels to reach local communities in order to communicate appropriate resource use and conser vation issues pertinent to their respective protected areas. Protected Areas in Botswana Botswana has approximately 40% of the tota l land mass designated as Protected Areas (PA), which include national parks, game reserv es; forest reserves, World Heritage Sites and Wildlife Management Areas (see Table 2-3) (GOB 2001). Overall, 17% had been designated as National Parks and Game Reserves while 22% were protected as Wildlife Management Areas (Figure 3-1). National parks and game and nature reserves (PAs) are distributed throughout the country, and include the Central Kgalagadi Game reserve, Kutse Game reserve, Makgadikgadi National park, Nxai Pan National park, Chobe National park, ChobeLinyanti system, Moremi Game Reserve, Mashatu Game reserve, Okavango Delta wetland, Lekhubu islands, Tsodilo Hills, Toutswe-mogala to name a few (see Tabl e 2-3). Other PAs such as Mokolodi Nature reserve, Jwana Game reserve, Gaborone Game reserve, Khama Rhino sanctuary, Manyelanong reserve, Matsieng foot print site and Lepokole Hills are also util ized for conservation, recreation and educational purposes (GOB, 2001; Botswa na Review, 2005). In addition, there is the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park the first forma lly declared Transboundary protected area in Southern Africa. Other proposed Transboundary conservation areas include, the ShasheLimpopo Transboundary Conservation Area and Four Corners Transboundary (See Table 2-4). In Botswana, national parks and Game reserves we re created to safeguard and maintain wildlife resources, preserve biodiversit y, integrate conservation and de velopment activities, foster ecological education and promot e Park-based tourism to benefit resources and people (GOB, 1992).
92 The governments commitment to conservati on and preservation of natural and cultural resource base and the promotion of sustainable utilization of such assets is evident. The protection and preservation of wildlife resources inside and/or on the buffer zones of parks and reserves has largely created the highest population of w ildlife in the country. Botswana has also been ranked high in the number and species vari ety in Southern Africa (BTDP, 1999). PAs were also created for scientif ic research purposes. Ch ild (2009) asserted that, the majority of National Parks and Game re serve were created on unoccupied state land that obviated the need for au thority from a district counc il representing the people in a tribal area, and the extensive consultation th at this involved the result was that considerable areas of Botswana were set aside by central government, at minimal social costs. (p. 51) Consequently, the government demarcated la nd area on the buffer zone of PAs as WMAs (Figure 3-1). Currently CBNRM initiatives with in local communities created CBOs and operate controlled tourism-related projects such as hunting safaris, photographic ventures and ecotourism in and around WMAs. Transfrontier/Transboundary Parks Transfrontier parks (TFPs) are defined as wildlife conservation areas with common international boundaries managed as a single unit by a joint authority that comprises of the representatives of the particip ating countries (Sandwith, Shine, Hamilton et al., 2001, p.3-4). The common objective of creating Transfrontier pr otected areas is to promote biodiversity conservation, tourism development, poverty a lleviation, and to enhance local community participation (Chengeta et al., 2003; Cornelisse n, 2005; Eagles et al., 2002; Sandwith et al,. 2001; Suich, 2008). Also, Transboundary parks are utilized as a means to reduce conflict or political differences between frontiers (Suich et al., 2009). The benefits are numerous and include the following: to reduce poaching and halt illegal trad e across boundaries; enhancement of nature-based tourism due to joint approaches to marketing and tour ope rator training and joint
93 agreements on fees, visitor management and pos sible reintroduction or natural resources recolonization of large range of species, and promo tion of ecosystem management (Sandwith et al., 2001; Suich et al., 2009). In Botswana, most of the Transboundary protected areas initiatives are still at the consultation and planning stages except for the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (see Table 2-4) (Chengeta et al., 2003). KTP operates under a dual ownership and management of governments of Botswana and South Africa. KTP is the first fo rmally declared Transfrontier Park in Africa (Chengeta et al., 2003). Transboundary Natural Resources Management5 (TBNRM) is fairly new concept in Botswana. Wildlife management and t ourism development initiatives are some of the few activities that are available and practiced. Th ere are several policies, legislation, Acts and regulations that govern TBP or KTP initiatives Some of the key policies include: Wildlife conservation policy of 1986 (whose role is to ensu re complete preservation in national parks and game reserves); the national pol icy on natural resources conser vation and development of 1990; and tourism and water resources policies. Acts include: Wildlife conservation and National Parks Act of 1992, Tourism Act of 1992, National Ecotourism Strategy of 2003, and the National Conservation Strategy. These govern ment policies share a lot in common, as they all emphasize sustainable utilization of natura l resources; promotion of a viab le commercial wildlife industry that will create employment, increase income s and improve livelihoods of the rural people; conservation of wildlife, protection of traditi onal rights of local communities, restoration of degraded rangelands and adoption of better mana gement strategies (Chengeta et al., 2003). Research on TBNRM initiatives has uncovered some strengths and weaknesses. There is no policy framework to guide management and im plementation of activitie s at KTP. Lack of 5 TBNRM are conservation programs across national boundaries and that involves more than one government (Cornelissen, 2005, p53).
94 guidelines has become a major drawback to th e advancement of the TBP initiatives. Also, communication amongst the various stakeholders, especially local communities in TBNRM is lacking (Chengeta et al., 2003). However, ther e is recognition to involve local communities (especially those residing on the border of TBPs ) in the planning and im plementation of project that occur in their area. Ba sed on the weaknesses of the TB NRM, Chengeta et al. (2003) recommended that government should have a po licy framework that guide implementation and other related management of activities linked to CBNRM.
95 Table 2-1. Visitors at Prot ected Areas in Botswana Year Arrivals Revenues Day visits Overnight visits Total Growth rate (%) Million Pula Growth rate (%) 2003 51, 0517 88,285 139, 302 19 2004 50,829 111,950 162,779 17 21 12.4 2005 53,063 184,190 237,258 46 24 13.5 Source: DOT (2005) Table 2-2. Potential benefits of protected area-based tourism Enhancing economic opportunity Protecting natural & cultural heritage Enhancing quality of life Improves living standards Increases jobs for local people Increases income Increases funding for PAs & local communities Encourages local manufacture if local goods Stimulates new tourism enterprises, & stimulates & diversifies the local economy Protects ecological processes & watersheds Conserves biodiversity Transmits conservation values, through education &interpretation Protects, conserves & values cultural & built heritage Supports research & development of good environment practices Supports environmental education for visitors & locals Encourages the development of culture, crafts and the arts Increases the educational level of local people Improves intercultural understanding Source: Eagles et al. (2002, p. 24)
96 Table 2-3. Protected Areas in Botswana Protected Areas Year Description Central Kgalagadi Game reserve 1961 52,800sq. kilometers, second largest game reserve in the world Makgadikgadi National park 1970 2,500sq. km of fossil pans a nd flat grass plains. Zebra and wildebeest, pelicans and fl amingos flock in the salty waters of the pans. Extensive grasslands, plains, and baobab trees. Nxai Pan National park 1976 A haven for bird life, bird watching is great, game is abunadnat during wet season game. The Okavango Delta 1996 Unique inland delta measures 15,000sq kilometers, listed as a Wetland of Internationa l importance, boasts diverse environments. Chobe National Park Moremi game reserve 1967 1965 11,000 and 3,900sq. Kilometers respectively. Forest, savanna woodlands, to ripa rian woodland and mophane, the rare Chobe, bushbuck, puku antelope, endangered white rhino and the big Five (lion, elephant, buffalo, leopard and rhino). Northeast Tuli Game Reserve Covers up to 300,000 ha. Larg est privately owned game conservation area in southern Africa. Has high numbers of elephants, lions, leopards, cheetahs. Vegetation is spectacular with gigantic nya la trees and yellow barked fever trees, frontier history & heritage Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 1931 The first formally declared trans-boundary park in Southern Africa. Straddles two major landmasses of South Africa and Botswana, covers a bout 38,000 sq. kilometers of the Kalahari ecosystem. Diverse wildlife resources predators, birds of prey, variety of antelopes.
97 Table 2-4. Transboundary Parks Initiatives in Botswana Name of TBP Countries involved Reasons for Trans-boundary Park The Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Botswana & South Africa Verbal agreement since 1948. Formal agreement between the two governments in 2000. Reason: ecosystem conservation and preservation of large mammals of southwest Kalahari and tourism. Park is operational The KalahariNamib desert Transfrontier project Botswana, Namibia & south Africa 20 year project, Focus: land and soils rehabilitation. Form ulated within the framework of UNCCD. Awaiting funding to commence Shashe Limpopo Transfrontier Park Botswana, South Africa & Zimbabwe Promote cross border tourism as a means for fostering regional socio-economic development. Reason: Implementation of the TFCA, wildlife management & tourism: The Four corners Trans-boundary Project Botswana, Namibia, Zambia & Zimbabwe Since, 2002. funded by AWF and USAID, RCSA Focus: Increased cooperation in the management of shard natural resources The Expanded Okavango Upper Zambezi International Tourism (OUZIT) initiative (regional project) Botswana, Angola, Lesotho, Namibia, Zambia & Zimbabwe South Africa, Swaziland, Mozambique & Tanzania, Focus: stimulating economic growth in the SADC region by developing its comparative advantage on ecotourism. is to establish a coast to coast tourism, conservation, and resource development zone built around a core network of conser vation assets of TFCAs Source: Adapted from Ch engeta et al. (2003, p. 49)
98 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Study Site The Kgalag adi District is located in sout hwestern Botswana and covers an area of 110,110 square kilometers (see Figure 1-3). The district is border ed by the Kweneng and Southern Districts in the east, Ghanzi in the north and South Africa and Namibia in the southsouthwest and west, respectively (Ministry of Local Government (MLG, 2003). The district is divided into two sub-districts, the north and south, both situated within the Kalahari Desert region. Kgalagadi north covers 44,004 square kilo meters, while the southern block comprises 66,066 square kilometers in land area (Kgalagadi District Development Plan KDDP 6, 20032009). The districts main administration offices are based in Tsabong and Hukuntsi villages. Tsabong is the headquarters and the largest village in the district. The Kgalagadi district forms part of the first formally declared Transfrontier Park1 in Southern Africa, the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. Other Transf rontier and/or Trans-boundary Parks in the Southern African region include the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park; Shashe Limpopo Transfrontier Park; Lubombo Transfrontier Cons ervation Area and MalotiDrakensberg Transfrontier C onservation Area (Table 3-1). The Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) straddles two major landmasses of the Republic of South Africa and Botswana, and covers a pproximately 38, 000 square kilometers of the Kalahari ecosystem (SANP & DWNP, 1997). Histor ically, the park on the Botswana side was called Gemsbok National Park (28,400 square kilome ters), while the South African frontier was referred to as the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park (9,591 square kilometers). In 1997, the 1 Relatively large area that straddles fr ontiers (boundaries) between two or more countries and covers a large-scale natural system encompassing one or more protected areas (World Bank, 1996, p.10).
99 Gemsbok National Park (Botswana) and the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park (South Africa) were merged into a single co-managed pr otected area (KTP) based on the following goals (SANP & DWNP, 1997, p. 9): To guarantee essential long term conservation of the wildlife resources in the Southern Kalahari, which will help maintain the inte grity of the entire Kalahari ecosystem To improve regional ecological management To share management of the park To allow free roaming of wildlife between the two countries To increase the international profile of KTP as a conservation area, thereby greatly enhancing its potential as a tourist destination To realize fully the economic potential of th e Transfrontier Park and the surrounding areas in order to bring economic benefits to both countries, especially to the local communities adjacent to the park To provide facilities and opportunities for rese arch and monitoring of activities for a better understanding of the physical and biological processes of the Kgalagadi ecosystem. To mitigate the undesirable imp acts of existing and potential land-use conflicts between the Park and neighboring local communities. The overall goal for KTP is the protection a nd conservation of flora and fauna resources of the Kgalagadi. There are no communities in ex istence inside the boundaries of KTP. Since, there is no physical demarcati on between South Africa and Botswa na, there is free movement of wild animals and people throughout the Park area (SANP & DWNP, 1997). Environmental Features Climate The Kgalagadi area is arid to semi-arid, and is characterized by high annual variations of rainfall, with averages of 150 mm and 250mm per year in the south and north, respectively (Moleele & Maina, 2003). On aver age, the district receives 95% of its total ra infall during the summer months of October to April. Temperat ures are higher in the summer and below the
100 national average during winter. So me villages within the distri ct are known to experience very chilly days and frost during winter ( MLG, 2003). Topography, Geology, Soils and Hydrology The Kgalagadi districts terrain is generally flat, with occasional low rocky hills, plains, salt pans, fossil valleys and sand dunes (GOB, 2001) The geology is composed of Karoo-super group sedimentation rocks, which include arkoses, carbonaceous mudstone shale and fillite (Ministry of Local Government, (MLG, 2003). Mining activity is not practiced due to the lack of significant mineral ores in the district. However, small scale salt production and mining-related activity occurs in the Zutshwa se ttlement for subsistence utili zation (GOB, 2001; Chanda et al., 2005). The area lacks surface hydrological features except for seasonal shallow pans and the fossil valleys of Molopo and Nossob. Underground wa ter exists in isolated perched aquifers. The district has three types of soils calcisols, regosols, and luvisols which are found in Molopo farms, Lokgwabe, Middlepits, Tsabong and the s outhern boundary along the South African side, (GOB, 2001; SANP & DWNP, 1997). The soils are ge nerally sandy with low fertility and loose, fine texture and are not conducive fo r agriculture (MLG, 2003; MLP, 1999). Flora The vegetation in the district has been classi fied as arid to semi-arid savannah shrub in the southwest and bush savannah in other part s of the region (Ecosurv, 1997). There are variations within the types of vegetation that ar e linked to soil types, topography and climate. Generally, grass cover is fairly low, especially during the dry period. Also, desert veldt resources such as grapple plant, wild berrie s, herbs and edible tubers, mokwa ( Coccinia rehmannii ) and tubers are abundant (GOB, 2001; May, 1998; Moleele & Maina, 2004). Common plants found in the area are kgengwe (wild melon, Citrullus lanatus); mahupu (Truffle, Terfezia spp);
101 sengaparile ( Harpagophytum procumbens ); moretlwa ( Grewia flava ) and motsotsojane ( Grewia retinervis ). Hoodia ( Gordonii cactus ) is a protected plant species in Botswana, and is found in abundance in the Kgalagadi region. Plants play a significant role in the residents livelihood, and are collected for subsistence and commercial purposes (MLG, 2005). However, conflicts over exploitation have been reported a nd there is a need for sustainable utilization (GOB, 2005). Fauna Substantial numbers of wild animals are st ill found in the Kalahari region. The desert environment is popular for wildli fe species, such as eland ( taurotragus oryx), gemsbok ( Oryx gazella ), blue wildebeest (connochaetes taurinus) kudu ( Tratgelaphus strepsiceros ), duiker ( cepholophus natalensis), steenbok ( raphicerus campestris ), hartebeest, springbok, and warthog (Arntzen & Veenendaal, 1986, cited in Moleele & Maina, 2004). Trophy animals and predators that are found in the area include lions ( panthera leo ), leopards ( panthera pardus ), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), spotted hyenas ( crocuta crocuta ), brown hyena ( hyena brunnea) and Black backed jackal (canis mesomeals), and bat-eared fox ( otocyon megalotis ). In 2008, it was estimated that about 450 individual lions live in KTP (SANP & DWNP, 2008), while in 2003 about 204 cheetahs were estimated to reside in KTP while 302 reside in the Kgalagadi Wildlife Management Areas (Klein, 2007), and 367 cheetahs we re spotted in the Kgalagadi agricultural areas alone (Klein, 2007). Other pr edators found in large numbers at KTP are brown hyenas (600 est.) and spotted hyenas (375). La rge herbivores such as buffalo and elephant are not found in this region due to lack of sufficient water. The Kgalagadi is also home to a variety of bird species, includi ng ostrich (Figure and social weavers. Birds of prey which include th e black-breasted snake eag le, lanner falcon, black korhaan, kori bastards and forktailed drongo, are also found in abundance and are adaptable to the desert environment (DWNP & SANP, 1997; GOB, 2001; Roodt, 2008). However, research
102 shows that there has been a decline in wildlife po pulation in the district, due to the expansion of the livestock sector and increased hunting activities (Castley, Knight, Mills & Thouless, 2002; Kgabung, 1999). District Background In 2001, the population of the Kgalagadi district was 42,049 with a density of 0.38 persons per square kilometer (CSO, 2001). Ninety percent of the inhabitant s live in the communal areas, especially in and around the villages of Matsheng, Kang and Tsabong (MLG, 2003; 2005). Collectively, the distri ct population occupies a networ k of 193 settlements within the Kgalagadi Communal Areas (KCA), and the av erage village/settlement size consists of 198 inhabitants. Settlements are often small with fewer than 500 people, comprised of a few household clusters usually inhabited by people with nomadic background. Villages are more formal, and are officially recognized establishmen ts with at least 500 persons. They have basic facilities and services, such as water, health clinics, postal se rvices and schools. The level of available services is dependent on the villag e classification (Botswana National Settlement Strategy, 2003). Eighty-three percent of the total village/s ettlements in the Kgalagadi communal areas have a population of more than 500 and only 8% have populations below 500. Tsabong village is the only village with more than 5,000 inhabitants. There are mo re people and settlements in Kgalagadi south (59% of the population and 58% of settlements) than in Kgalagadi north (41% of the population and 42% of settlements (KCA, 2005; MLG, 2005). Table 3-2 illustrates the population distribution and densities from 1981 to 2001. The settlement patterns are typical in that most people live in villages and settlements such as Tsabong, Hukuntsi, Kang, Lehututu, Makopong and Werda (KCA, 2005, MLG, 2005). Tsabong and Hukuntsi villages have acquired the st atus of secondary centers, based on the 1998
103 National Settlement strategy. They provide basic social services and f acilities (health, banking, telecommunications, postal, police, community development, edu cation services) to the people and the surrounding areas. The villages and settle ments are sparsely populated and tend to be situated near pans, fossil river valleys or rock outc rops. The patterns are associated with the history of settlement in the Kgal agadi region (MLG 2005; Roodt, 2008). The main ec onomy of the district has primarily been based on raising small scal e livestock and nominal crop farming. Other traditional livelihood activities include subsis tence hunting and gathering (Chanda & Magole, 2001; Totolo & Chanda, 2003). Demographically, the district population is young with 37% below the age of 15. There are more than five ethnic groups, namely: Bang ologa, Basarwa, Baherero, Batlharo, Coloureds and Nama. The San/Basarwa people are classified as Remote Ar ea Dwellers (RAD), and live in the settlements of Ukhwi, Ngwatle and Ncaa ng (KD 1), Khawa (KD 15) and Zutshwa (KD 2). The Nama ethnic group mainly resides in a nd around Tshane, Lokgwabe and Tsabong, while Coloureds live in Struizendam, Boksp its, Rappelspan, and Vaalhoek (MLG, 2005). The Kgalagadi district incorporating KTP of fers a wide range of eco-tourism resources and products (Table 3-3). Eco-resources incl ude nature, desert-landscape, unique sand dunes (ridges), salt pans, culture and history. With respect to cultural heritage resources, artifacts dating to the early, middle and late Stone Ages have been uncovered in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) and the surrounding villages and se ttlements (GOB, 2000). Also, anthropological and archaeological remains have been uncovered in the nearby Central Kgalagadi Game reserve (CKGR) (Segobye, 2006). Overall, the district is endowed with ri ch nature and cultural-based heritage resources (See Table 3-4), such as history, tribal stories a nd lifestyle, as well as the rich intangible heritage of the San/Basarwa, Ba herero (Damara), Nama, Batlharo, Coloureds and
104 Bangologa ethnic groups (CSIR, 2002; MLG, 2005). The ethnic songs, music, dances, traditions, local food, poetry, folklore, handicrafts, religion, language and traditional costumes have unique traits. Handicrafts made from ostrich eggshells (head bands, bracelets, necklaces, belts, floor mats) are produced mainly by the indigenous co mmunities of San/Basarwa who reside in and around the KTP buffer zone (CSIR, 2002; Johnson, 1996). Selected Communities: Background For the purpose of this study, nine village/settlements were selected from the Kgalagadi district: Kang, Ncaang, Ukhwi, Zutshwa, Tshane (Kgalagadi North) and Khawa, Struizendam, Bokspits, Tsabong (Kgalagadi south). Stratifi ed sampling was used to select the nine communities. Distance/proximity of communities to the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park was also a major criteria employed in the sampling procedure. The total number of inhabitants in these communities is 13,619 (CSO, 2001), while the total popula tion for the entire Kgalagadi district is approximately 43,000, with more people living in the Kgalagadi north (25, 938) than in the south (16,111) (CSO, 2001). The village/settlements of Ncaang, Ukhwi, Zutshwa and Khawa are located within Wildlife Management areas (WMAs), where th e main rangeland utilization is wildlife conservation. Ncaang and Ukhwi are positioned within a WMA and are referred to as KD 1 (Controlled Hunting area 1); Zutshwa is situated in a WMA and is called KD 2; Khawa is in the WMA KD 15. Figure 3-1 shows the WMAs for western Botswana. Among all the sampled villages, Tsabong is the largest and is the headquarters and administration center of the Kgalagadi district. The village became a popular tourism destination after the Trans-Kalahari Highway (TKH) was completed. Tourism facilities include: lodging facilities (lodges, motels, guesthouses, and campsite s), amenities (banking facility, post office, gas station, vehicular parts and service outlets, restaurants, fast food outlets, grocery stores,
105 butchers, vegetable stores and wholesale outlets), a shopping precinct, an ai rstrip and small-scale tennis court. Kang village is the second largest village in the Kgalagadi region. The Trans-Kalahari Highway (TKH) was constructed in the early 19 90s and runs through this village (Imani-TMT Consortium, 2000. TKH plays a major role in tour ism, as it has opened business opportunities in southwestern Botswana (Imani-TMT Consortium, 2000). It has also provided easy access to the neighboring countries of Namibi a and South Africa. Kang has now become a popular stop-over for lodging, food and re-fueling for tourists and visitors. The tourism-related physical infrastructure in Kang includes guesthouses, lodges, campsites, game farms, craft shop, indigenous art outlet, airstrip a nd petrol/gasoline filling stations which were largely built after the completion of the TKH (CSIR, 2002). Tshane is located in Kgalagadi nort h and is one of the Matshe ng groups of villages. There are a few ethnic groups found in Tshane: Bangol oga, Bakgalagadi, Bakgatla and Bashaga. Studies show that about 56% of the households in Tshane are involve d in crop farming for subsistence (Chanda & Magole, 200 1). The harvest does not meet th e total subsistence needs in many homes (Van der Mass et al., 1994 cited in Chanda & Magole, 2001; Totolo & Chanda, 2001). High out-migration has been reported for this village as 45% have migrated to urban centers in search of job opportunities (Chanda & Magole, 2001). The village/settlements of Khawa, Ncaang, Ukhwi, and Zutshwa are located within WMAs, and have low populations. The least populat ed village is Ncaang with 175 inhabitants, and the majority are San/Basarwa (CSO, 2001). Th ese settlements offer safari hunting to both
106 local and overseas hunters, and have established Co mmunity-Based Organizations2 (CBO) for conservation and tourism activities. Study Design This study employed a mixed method, with bot h quantitative and qualitative components. Personal interviews and questionnaire surveys were integrated concurrently to increase potential for the understanding of the res earch problem and data validity (Babbie, 2001; Pallant, 2007; Simmons, 1994). The mixed method is defined broadly as research in which the investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single study or a program of inquiry (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007, p.4). The quantitative approach involves the collect ion of numerical data in order to explain, predict, and/or control phenomena of interest via statistical analysis (deductive process), with the assumption that objective can then be expressed as a numeric value (Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005). In quantitative research, only one type of statistical generalization is pertinent, namely the generalizing of findings from the sample to the underlying population (Hatch, 2002; Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). Conversely, the qual itative approach involv es the collection of extensive narrative data in order to gain insigh ts into the phenomenon of interest (in this case stakeholder perspectives toward CBE developm ent), and the data are analyzed by coding and production of a verbal synthesis (inductive process) (Grix, 2004; Hatch, 2002; Henderson, Ainsworth, Stolarzcyk et al., 1999; Henderson, 2006). In the qualitative approach, there is em phasis on understanding, because a researcher cannot rely on statistical obser vations alone to understand social phenomenon (Grix, 2004; 2 Khawa = Khawa Kopanelo Development Trust; Zutshw a = Qhaa Qhing Development Trust and Ukhwi & Ukhwi = Nqwaa Khobee Xeya Development Trust.
107 Hatch, 2002). However, qualitative results can be sk ewed, because the researchers are part of the social reality being studied (Grix, 2004; He nderson, 2006). Qualitative re searchers typically do not make external statistical generalizations, becaus e their goal usually is not to make inferences about the underlying population, but they atte mpt to obtain insights into a particular educational, social, and familial process and prac tices that exist within a specific location and context (Connolly, 1998 cited in Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007, p. 240). Qualitative techniques frequently are used to provide information to further develop quantit ative research (Decrop, 1999). Goldman & MacDonald (1987) contend that it is logical for qualitative research to precede a quantitative study, because survey analys is implies a progressive tightening of focus and a validation or refinement of qualitative hypoth esis (p.13). Further, qu alitative research can adjust or modify the survey methodology by giving insight into meaningful response categories or alternatives (Goldman & MacD onald, 1987; Henderson et al., 1999). The two research techniques that guided the study were drawn from the views and approach of Creswell & Clark (2007), Denzin & Lincoln (1994), Em erson (2001), and Sayre (2001). These authors believe that employing mu ltiple methods in data collection helps to improve the probability that findings and interpreta tions will be credible. In particular, Creswell & Clark (2007) maintain that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research probl ems than either approach alone (p. 5). Henderson (2006) argues that no one method is perfect, so more than one method may give additional information to a resear cher (p. 221). Similarly, Sayre (2001) contends that qualitative methods can be used to gather insights that m ay or may not be absolu tely typical of another group of folks who inform the research (p. 3). Mixed methods therefore were used to
108 corroborate results, and also enab led the researcher to obtain deeper understa nding of the issues at stake. Integration of both quantitative and qualitative approaches benefited this study, since the community that was studied was unique, due to the geographical location, diverse ethnic groups and high illiteracy rates, esp ecially among the San/Basarwa (Arntzen, 2001; Chanda & Magole, 2001). According to Henderson (2006), linking both approaches is important in studying an area which has not been extensively examined. Sayr e (2001) adds that comb ining both methodologies provides a comprehensive approach to problem solving. However, the mixed method approach can be time consuming and expensive for a single study (Bernard, 2000; Creswell & Clark, 2007; Sayre, 2001). These disadvantages ar e usually outweighed by the increased trustworthiness and theore tical importance of the results (Henderson, 2006). Some of the information sources used were, government policy documents, official reports, consultancy working papers, government tourism statistics, books, and other important unpublished materials. The tourism industrys performance reports on Botswana and the southwestern region were obtained from the Mini stry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism, Department of Tourism and Depart ment of Wildlife and National Parks, as well as the University of Botswana, the Botswana Tourism Board, and i ndustry associations such as the Hospitality and Tourism Associations of Botswana and the Bo tswana Community Based Organization Network (BOCOBONET). Local and regional maps, land use management plans and other related documents were obtained from the Department of Town and Rural Planning. The Botswana National Development Plan (NDP 9) and commu nity-based natural resources managementrelated literature were also utilized.
109 For the primary data, two stakeholder gr oups were consulted and studied: the local residents and public sector. Both groups were se lected for the study based on the assumption that they have primary stake in the resources of the Kgalagadi dist rict and in the south western regions general planning and development program s. Secondary stakeholde rs such as visitors were not included in this study due to scope of study and time limitation. Data Collection Data collection was conducted from Oct ober 2008 to January 2009, approximately 13 weeks of fieldwork in total (Table 3-5). Residents were sampled from their respective communities, while the public sector participants were interviewed at their work places (Table 36). A pilot study, which was the foundation for this study, was undertaken from May 2006 to July 2006. At that time, the re searcher visited th e district and conducted key informant interviews with some knowledgeable members of the community, with th e aim of understanding the level of tourism awareness; the importa nce of tourism in the community, understanding conservation and other issues. Interviews were held with village chiefs/headmen, chairs of village committees; government pe rsonnel, wildlife and tourism departments staff; youth club representatives; and the game scouts and staff at KTP at Tw o Rivers in Kgalagadi south. Data for this study were obtai ned via fieldwork using two re search instruments: an indepth semi-structured interview and a structured household survey. The in-depth interview was employed to solicit information from the local an d national public sector representatives. The public sector included those indivi duals who have worked and lived in the area for at least six months and were familiar with local communities and/or have participated in some village development meetings and activities. The latter group included those who dealt with district development matters, but were based in Gaboron e, the capital city. The policy makers are known to have different interests or stakes that pertain to developm ent in the Kgalagadi region. They
110 formulate policies and management plans which ot hers have to adopt. According to De Haas, (2004), the use of knowledgeable local people enables tourism planners, managers and developers to obtain views that could provide them with insight for a specific area that they would not otherwise have been able to access (Luck & Kirstges, n. d, p.150). Pigram (1992) supports the idea by arguing that certain peopl e in communities possess local knowledge and are aware of events in the village because of the types of employment and experiences they have with the village culture. For the household data, a structured face-to-face interview was used to elicit data from the residents. Thus, two sampling frames were employed. Selection of Participants Residents: Quantitative A stratified sampling method based on the geographic location or proximity of villages to the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park was used. Nine villages were sampled, with five in the north and 4 in the south (Table 3-7). For sampling purpo ses, a list of villages and associated population sizes contained in the 2001 population census re port was obtained from the Central Statistic Office. A systematic sampling of residents was utilized to select households from the villages of Bokspits, Kang, Khawa, Ncaang, Struizendam, Tshane, Tsabong, Ukhwi and Zutshwa. The systematic sampling was used, because it preclu des the need to go through a table of random numbers and to attach each number with a matching case (Bryman & Cramer, 2005). The study area is different, because unlike urban centers, ther e are no streets and avenues that can be used to classify households or residential blocks in rural Botswana. Instead, households tend to be demarcated or separated by paths, tracks, roads, rock outcrops, hills or valleys. Thus, every other home or plot that intersects paths and roads was selected a nd visited for an interview. The head of the household was requested to participate and a consent form was signed by the interviewee before each survey. A face-to-face interview method was employed for data
111 collection based on the fact that there is high illiteracy in the Kgalag adi region (Arntzen, 2001; Phuthego & Chanda, 2004). Therefore, the researcher read the questions to the respondent and accordingly completed the survey based on verbal responses. In the Africa n context, men are the heads of households, and in the absence of a household. The spouse was interviewed. However, in instances when the head of the household ( husband/wife) was not home, any member of the family who was 18 years or older and had lived in the village or district for at least 12 months was asked to participate. It is important to not e that in Kgalagadi, vi llages and settlements are located far from each other because of th e history of settlement in the area. All village/settlements are situated on or near natural desert featur es called salt pans and fossil valleys. The researchers familiarity with the study area and culture allowed for information gathering that would otherwise have been di fficult to obtain. Table 3-7 shows the sampled villages, populations and actua l number of households interviewed and approximate distance from KTP. In estimating the total number of househol ds in each community, the total population was divided by 4.1, which is the average househol d size for rural Botswa na as per the 2001 population census (CSO, 2001). The assumption was that the 4.1 average va lue applies to the sampled communities in the Kgalagadi region (Chanda, personal communication). The sampled village/settlements for the st udy had a total population of 13,6 19 inhabitants (CSO, 2001) and 3,331 households (est., CSO 2001). A sample size of 1000 households was targeted for the survey, which represented 30% of the total households in the nine communities selected for this study. But only 22.4% of the total households (3,331) were surveyed. Further, thirty percent of households were selected from each of the sampled communities, except for Kang and Tsabong (Table 3-6). The two rural communities of Kang and Tsabong have exceptionally high
112 populations and a substantially hi gh number of households compar ed to the other villages and settlements in the Kgalagadi (DDP, 2005). A furthe r thirty percent cut point was applied to the 482 Tsabong and 274 Kang households based on the principles of Central Limit Theorem (CLT) (Agresti, 1999). In CLT, when N is large, the sampling distribution of Y is approximately normal, even if the population is skewed (p.105) A normal curve represents a distribution of values, where the mean, median and mode are equal. Thus, a sample of 30 is regarded as good to estimate the household mean with reasonable accuracy (Munro, 2005). Overall, 75% (N=746) of residents completed the questionnaire. The rema ining 25% of the sample included those who refused to be interviewed, did not complete the su rvey or in other instan ces, an eligible member was not present at home. Due to high illiteracy rate w ithin some ethnic groups in rural Kgalagadi, the survey questions were translated into the national language Setswana. An expert from the University of Botswana with double majors in English a nd African languages (literature and Grammar) checked the translation for consistency. The questionnaire was translated back into English to ensure accuracy and clarifica tion (see Henderson & Kaufman, 1990) English is an official language and is used as the medium of instru ction in schools and all government institutions. Three research assistants from the University of Botswana were re cruited and trained at workshops held in Gaborone and Kang. Occasionally, local persons were recruited and hired to assist with the translation, whenever it was needed. Operationalization of Variables The survey instrument for residents was crea ted based on a review of existing literature. The research constructs in this study were : knowledge of ecotourism; perception of CBE; community concern; participation (use leve ls); conservation att itudes; support for CBE
113 development; and support for KTP as a Tr ansfrontier Park. The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, such as age, gender, education, length of residence, income, employment, occupation, ethnicity, and distance/location were also included in the survey. These items provided the general characteristics of th e household composition of the total sample. The survey instrument (Appendix C) comprise d of nine sections that ranged from the socio-demographic questions (12 items); ecotour ism knowledge (11 items) ; perceptions of CBE (14 items); conservation attitudes about KTP (16 items); community concern (5 items); participation (use level) (3 items); support fo r KTP (5 items), and support for CBE development (6 items) (see Table 3-8). Knowledge about ecotourism This part of the survey contained 11 items that measured local re sidents awareness of tourism and ecotourism activities in their communities. The sec tion had three-choice responses from which respondents were to denote either ; yes, no, dont know as their answer. Example questions were: There ar e guesthouse, lodges, and motels for visitors in my village; Many people from Kalahari region visit my dist rict strictly for recreation/tourism; Revenue from community-based tourism benefits many pe ople in my village. The items were adapted from multiple sources (Avila Foucat, 2002; Br andon, 2007; Dyer et al., 2007; Lai & Nepal, 2006; Kuvan & Akan, 2005; Welbourne, 2001). Perceptions about community-based ecotourism The perception about CBE construct was m easured by 14 items based on a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly Disagree; 3= Neutral; 5= Strongly Agree. The items were adapted from Lai & Nepal (2006).
114 Conservation attitudes Conservation attitudes were operationalized by 16 items on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly disagree; 3=Neutra l; 5=Strongly Agree. The items were adapted from the literature (Gadd, 2005; Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Infield, 1988; Infield & Namara, 2001; Nguen, 2006; Sekhar, 2003; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). Community concern For this construct, the level of potential concern if tourism was increased in the community was assessed. A five-point Likert-type scale that ra nged from 1 to 5, where 1= Not at all concerned; 3= moderately concerned; 5= ex tremely concerned was used. The indicators for level of concern were adapted from Gursoy et al. (2002), and Jurowski & Gursoy (2004). Participation (use levels) The participation (use levels ) variable was measured by a binary question of yes or no. The respondents were asked if they had ever visited KTP. The section also contained openended questions for frequency of visitation, and motivations to visit in the previous twelvemonth period. The items were adapted from multiple sources (Bauer, 2003; Keogh, 1990; Perdue et al., 1990). Support for KTP The support for the conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park was measured by 5 items in which respondents were asked if they suppor t or oppose KTP as a Tran sfrontier Park. A 5point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 to 5, where 1=Strongly oppose; 3= Neutral; 5= Strongly support, was employed. Items were ad apted from multiple sources (Alexander, 2000; De Boer & Baquete, 1998; Sikaraya et al., 2002).
115 Support for community-based ecotourism The support for community-based ecotourism construct was measured by six items based on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, wh ere 1= strongly oppose; 3= neutral; 5= strongly support. The questions asked respondents if th ey would support or oppose CBE development in their area. The indicators were adapted from multiple sources (Jurowski, 1994; Lai & Nepal, 2006; Nelson, 2004; Nyaupane & Thap a, 2004; Sikaraya et al., 2002). Socio-demographic This section consisted of the socio-dem ographic characteristics of respondents (age, gender, education, household income, employment, residency, ethnicity, h ousehold size, sources of income and occupation). The items in this section consisted of both closed and open-ended questions designed to assess the char acteristics of the respondents. Distance/proximity The distance/proximity of the respondents village/settlement to the KTP was assessed. The variable was assessed with a single open-ended question, How far is your village from KTP (in kilometers)? The distance between villages and KTP was verified by ccross-checking with the Botswana National Atlas road maps. This single open-ended question was adapted from multiple sources (Durrant & Durrant, 2008; Ju rowski & Gursoy, 2004; Ko & Stewart, 2002). Validity and Reliability Validity is the extent to which the data obtained in the study truly reflects the phenom enon being studied (Henderson, 2006; Palla nt, 2007); specifically, whether the survey questions measure what they are intended to measur e. Bernard (2000) states that, validity is the accuracy and trustworthiness of an instrument, data and findings in the research (p. 46). In order to address issues of validity and reliability, a pilot study was conducted with 20 households to cross-check wording, clarity of questions, and the amount of time required for each interview.
116 Content validity was verified by involving a team of four experts (research committee members). Validity was also enhanced by use of an array of questions which were adapted from previous literature. Following the pilot test, minor corrections were identified and corrected prior to the actual survey administration. For the qualitative data, validity was checked by comparing data collected through multiple instruments that in cluded note-taking and tape recording of interviews. Reliability refers to the extent to which research findings would be the same if the research were to be repeated at a later time or with a different sample of subjects (George & Mallery, 2006; Pallant, 2005; Veal 2006). It refers to the degree to which items being measured are consistent with one another, in that they represent one, a nd only one, dimension, construct or area of interest (Babbie, 2001; Veal, 2006). In this study, the internal re liability of items was estimated using Cronbachs coefficient alpha (Creswell & Clark, 2007; Cronbach, 1951; George & Mallery, 2006; Nunnally, 1978; Pallant, 2007). The value of coefficient alpha depends on the average inter-item correlation a nd the number of items in the scale (George & Mallery, 2006). Both Nunnaly (1978; 1994) and George & Mallery ( 2006) argue that a calculated coefficient of a 0.70 or above confirms that the s cale is internally reliable. Public Sector: Qualitative Purposive sampling was employed to select a sample of the public sector stakeholder representatives for in-depth semi-structured interviews Purposive sampling is characterized by the use of judgment to obtain a representative sample by including typical areas or groups in the sample (Kerlinger, 1986; Patton, 1990) With purposive sampling, the sa mple is selected for the convenience of the researcher who uses his/her own judgment in the selection process. The researcher decides on the partic ipants and/or study sites that can best provide the needed information.
117 There is no overall sampling design that dictates the number of respondents needed (Bernard, 2000; Creswell & Clark, 2007; On wuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). Thirteen (13) representatives were purposively selected from ex isting institutions and organizations that have stake or are influential in tour ism and ecotourism-related devel opment issues in the study area. Interviews of people with knowledge and expert ise about issues of development in local communities provide an important knowledge base which may contribute to the review of policies, and may improve planning, management and marketing of community-based ecotourism in the area. The total sample (N=13) of representatives was drawn from; local and national organizations (see Table 3-9). The sample included men and women aged 18 and older, who have worked or resided in the Kgalagadi region for a period of at least six months. Each organization and its representative were identifie d, contacted and requested to be interviewed. Participants were contacted vi a telephone and by actual visi ts to their organizations. An in-depth interview was used in this st udy. The researcher-partici pant discussions were directed by the use of a semi-structured intervie w guide (Appendix D) with thirteen questions (Table 3-10). The interview questions measured the public sector stakeholders knowledge and understanding of ecotourism, community-based ecotourism, the general conservation issues, park-based tourism, residents participation in tourism/recreation, natural resource management, and the Transfrontier Park conservation and management issues. Additional questions for discussion were added through pr obing during the interview pr ocess. Participants were interviewed face-to-face by the researcher. The average duration for an interview was approximately 45 minutes.
118 Data Treatment Residents The household survey data was analyzed usi ng the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13.0. First descriptive statistics including frequencies and pivot tables were used to summarize data for all m ain constr ucts and variables in the conceptual models (Figure 1-1 & 1-2). Second, statisti cal analyses were conducted for statistical sign ificance at the 0.05 level. The suitability of the data was a ssessed via Kaiser Meyer-Oaklin (KMO), and all analyses with a KMO of 0.7 and above were used (Babbie, 2001; George & Mallery, 2006). KMO was assessed because it is a measure of sampling adequacy (see Kaiser, 1970; 1974). The test of internal consistency (coefficient alpha) wa s performed for each of the constructs in this study. The fourteen items in the perception construct were subjected to reliability analysis, and demonstrated a coefficient alpha of 0.80. To im prove the alpha value, two items were deleted, and the reliability increased to 0.84 (Table 3-11). The conservation attitudes construct consisted of 16 items, with a coefficient alpha of 0.69. In orde r to improve the reliabili ty for this construct, one item was removed and the reliability coefficien t alpha increased to 0.72 (Table 3-12). These items had low inter-rater correlations, and their re moval or deletion enhanc ed the reliability of their respective indices. Also, the community con cern construct consisted of five items, with a Cronbachs coefficient alpha of 0.79 (Table 3-13); support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park consisted of 5 items, with a coefficient alpha of 0.70 (Table 3-14); and lastly support for CBE development construct had 6 item s, with an alpha of 0.86 (Table 3-15). The alpha values were all above th e threshold of 0.70 (see Table 316) as recommended by Nunnally (1978), and there is indication for a strong internal consistency of the items (Table 3-16). In this
119 study, the coefficient Alpha of 0.7 or greater wa s regarded suitable based on Baumgartner & Jackson (1999), Field (2005), Hair, Anderson, Tathan et al. (1998) and Nunnaly (1978). Initially, a series of factor analyses were conducted with tw o objectives a) to identify and understand the basic underlying id eas among a large number of variables (items) and b) to reduce the number of variable s, if necessary (see Meyers & Mullet, 2003, p. 203). Since the results identified some factors with satisfactor y reliability scores while a few with less than satisfactory scores, summated scales of the measures with calculated mean scores were used in analysis.(Hair et al., 1998). Based on all the constructs in the model, aggr egated indices or mean scores were created (Table 3-17). The mean scores for the constructs ( perception index, attitudes index, concern index, support for CBE index and support for KTP index) were used in the subsequent analyses in this study (see Darley, 1999; Morgan & St rong 2003; Pessemier, Bemmoar & Hanssen, 1977; Wang & Pfister, 2008; Wern imont & Fitzpatrick, 1972). The collinearity analysis of all constructs was conducted to check if there were any problems of multicollinearity between indepe ndent variables (Osborne & Waters, 2002 Callaghan & Chen, 2008). The commonly used cutoff mark for determining the presence of multicolinearity is the Tolerance (TOL) value of less than 0.10 or Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) value of above 10 (Pallant, 2005, p.150). According to Callaghan & Chen (2008) and Meyers, Gamst & Guarino (2006) multicollinearity is indicated for a particular variable if tolerance value is 0.10 or less or if VIF is grea ter than 10 (p. 212). The VIF and Tolerance for this study ranged from 1.041 to 2.353 (VIF) a nd 0.425 to 0.961 (TOL), respectively. Thus, multicolinearity was not a problem (Allison, 1999; Hair et al., 1998; Osborne & Waters, 2002; Pallant, 2007). Also, the correlation matrix (Table 3-16) did not show any evidence of
120 multicollinearity. All correlations for the compos ed indices were below 0.50 except for one at 0.55, and were all significant except one. In order to assess discri minant validity, the correlations between paired variables were compared with their individual reliabilities. The correlations ranged from 0.007 to 0.554, and the reliabilities ranged from a 0 .70 to 0.86. Gaski (1984) contends that if the correlati on between two constructs is not higher than their respective reliability estimates, then discriminant validity exists. As shown on Table 3-16, no correlations were higher than their respective reliabilities. Thus, discriminant validity was ascertained for the construct indices. Research hypotheses testing were conducted. Fi rst of all regression analysis assumptions (linearity, reliability of the measurement and normality) were tested to ensure that the data was fit for analysis (Babbie, 2001; Pa llant, 2007). Overall, testing of the main variables (explanatory and response) in the conceptual models was empl oyed. Data analyses for re sidents survey were assessed. Pearson (r) correlation an alyses were performed to determ ine if there were associations between the independent and dependent variable s in the two conceptual models. Standard multiple regressions were also conducted with all the independent and dependent variables for both conceptual models to test for predictive vali dity. Both analyses were employed in this study in order to predict residents behavior (mu ltiple regressions) and to examine and understand association or relationship (cor relation) (Grimm & Yarnold, 1997). Public Sector For qualitative interview data, three types of coding (open, axial and selective) were employed in the analyses of interview data. Coding enables the researcher to organize information into manageable units and to compare information obtained from interview data. Coding also allows comparisons of one inte rview with another (Bernard, 2000; Coffey &
121 Atkinson, 1996; Henderson, 2006; Patton, 1990; 2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Thirteen in-depth interviews (8 locals and 5 nationals) were analy zed. All audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, except for 2 interviews in Kgalagadi district that were handwritten. The five stages of data analysis specified by Daly et al. (1992) and Hatch, (1998) were adapted in this stu dy. First of all a codebook3 was created. Pre-coded items such as age, gender, education, length of residency, place a nd date of interview were included in the codebook. The data was first coded by using open codes or labels whereby ideas or general themes were identified in the data and assigne d labels. Portions of data were coded based on recurring themes and were marked by underlining meaning units or unit of analaysis line by line using different colored pencils. The created codes were then organized in an index system (see Daly et al. (1992). The next step was axial codi ng, which involves studying the data to develop and organize labels, themes or categories (which were open coded) to further identify possible patterns and linkages between them (Coffe y & Atkinson, 1996; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Then were similaries were identified and differe nces between categories determined based on recurring themes. Lastly selective coding was em ployed where themes were re-organized into meaningful categories and summary of what was found was written (see Da ly et al., 1992; Hatch, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1984). In addition, field memos were utili zed for constant comparison and verification of issues that i nvolved audio-recorded information. 3 A code book is a list of all of the codes used for the analysis of a particular collection of data, names of the variables that the codes represent, and a list of the kind s of items that are to be coded for each varibale (See LeCompte & Schensul, 1999, p. 85).
122 Hypotheses Testing Support for Community-Based Ecotourism Development Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive association between perception of CBE and support for CBE developm ent. ** Support for CBE (CBEIndex) was correlated with perception about CBE. Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive association between conservation attitude towards KTP and support for CBE development. ** Support for CBE (CBEIndex) was correlated with conservation attitude. Hypothesis 3: There will be a negative association between levels of community concern and support for CBE development. ** Support for CBE ( CBEIndex) was correlated with level of community concern. Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive association be tween participation (Use level) and support for CBE development. ** Support for CBE ( CBEIndex) was correlated with participation (use level). Hypothesis 5 : There will be a significant associati on between the co-variates (i.e., age, gender education, residency, distance/pro ximity) and support for CBE development. ** Support for CBE ( CBEIndex) development was correlated with socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, educ ation, residency, distance/proximity). Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park Hypothesis 6: There will be a positive association between perception of CBE and support for KTP as a Transfrontier park ** Support for conservation of KTP ( SupKTP _Index) as a Transfrontier Park was correlated with perception about CBE. Hypothesis 7: There will be a positive association between conservation attitude towards KTP and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. ** Support for conservation of KTP (SupKTP _Index) as a Transfrontier Park was correlated with conservation attitude. Hypothesis 8: There will be a negative associati on between level of community concern and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park.
123 ** Support for conservation of KTP (SupKTP _Index) as a Transfrontier Park was correlated with level of community concern. Hypothesis 9: There will be a positive association between participation (use level) and support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park. ** Support for conservation of KTP (SupKTP_ID) as a Transfrontier Park was correlated with participation. Hypothesis 10: There will be a significant association between the co-variates (i.e., age, sex, location, residency, education) and s upport for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. ** Support for KTP (SupKTP_Index) as a Trans frontier Park was correlated with sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, educat ion, residency, location) among residents.
124 Figure 3-1. Designated Wildlife Management Areas in Southwest Botswana (GOB, 2001)
125 Table 3-1. Transfrontier Conserva tion Parks in Southern Africa Names of Protected Area Countries Year Size (km) Resources Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Botswana & South Africa 1999 38,000 Wildlife, wilderness, desert landscape, culture, historic & archaeological material, indigenous landscape Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park Mozambique, South Africa & Zimbabwe 2002 35,000 Wildlife, wilderness, culture, wetlands, archaeology, indigenous history Shashe Limpopo Transfrontier Park Botswana, South Africa & Zimbabwe 2006 4,872 Sandstone formations, baobab trees, diversity of game birds, golden rhino, Mapungugwe World Heritage site, historic & anthropological resources Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland 2000 4,195 Wildlife, wilderness, culture, wetlands, archaeology, indigenous history Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation Area Lesotho & South Africa 2001 8,113 Wildlife, unique montane and sub-alpine ecosystems, botanical landscape, culture, archaeology, indigenous history, mountains AiAIS/Ritchtersveld Transfrontier Park Namibia & South Africa 2003 6,222 Worlds second largest canyon, fish river canyon floor, Hotspring game park, Rictchtersveld national park Table 3-2. Population densitie s and distribution (1981 2001) Botswana District Kgalagadi South Kgalagadi North district densitySouth Density North Density Surface area km 582,000 110,110 66, 066 44 044 Population 1981 941,027 24,059 0.22 15 409 0.23 8 650 0.20 Population 1991 1,326,796 31,134 0.28 19 586 0.30 11 340 0.26 Population 2001 1,680,863 42,049 0.38 25 938 0.39 16 111 0.37 Source: KDDP 6, (2003-2009)
126 Table 3-3. Ecotourism res ources in Kgalagadi area Types of resources Eco-activities Nature Nature walks, bird watching, guided walks, wilderness camping, dune biking, 4x4 trails, photographic safaris, sand dune/ridge, dune rides, desert landscape filming, sightseeing, wild life, birding, salt pan system. Culture/history Cultural activities, indigenous/t raditional villages, dances, music, dress, traditional weddings, traditional healing practices, San hunting, archaeological and historical remains, traditional life, Arts and crafts Bead-work, ostrich eggshell handiwork, hide and skin tanning, bone and wood carving, artifacts, music, ini tiation practices, hunting rituals, Events/festivals Agricultural shows, traditional dances, rain making/prayer rituals, initiation performances and rituals Farming activities Traditional farming, farm e quipment & practice, karakul sheep and wool weaving, horses, donkey, hoodia gardens, game farms, game and livestock ranches, ostrich farms, camel ranch, organized donkey & camel rides,
127 Table 3-4. Attractions in th e greater Kalahari region Name Attraction description Category/type Kuru museum & cultural centre Contemporary artwork. San/Basarwa arts and craft and curios Cultural-heritage Ghanzi Craft center & shop A 1953 outlet and training centre for San craftspeople, showcases, promotes and sells San/Basarwa crafts. Bow-and-arrow sets, springbok-skin dancing skirts, leather aprons, musical bows, hatched ostrich eggshell necklaces, woven mats, hats and indigenous dancing dolls. Cultural heritage Gantsi Trail Blazers San/Basarwa cultural camp. Guided walks & hunting and gathering expeditions Nature & culturalheritage Central Kalahari Game Reserve Largest game reserve in Botswana. wildlife resources & Basarwa cultural heritage Nature & culturalheritage Kutse Game reserve Most remote and unspoiled areas of Southern African region. Rich wildlife resources & anthropological, arcaeologi cal cultural heritage Nature & culturalheritage Deception valley Fossil valley, which stretches 80km across CKGR Northern part, covered with short grass, dotted with the occasional islands of bushy trees, historical and heritage resource Nature & culturalheritage Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Transboundary conservation are, rich wildlife and wilderness resources, anthropological, archaeological remains, rich cultural heritage resources Nature & cultural-based heritage Mabuasehube wilderness Trail From Molapo pan to Nossop, campsites mosemane salt pan, wild animals, (e.g., lions, leapords, cheetah, gemsbok) landscape features Nature & cultural-based heritage TSAMAMA large scale Camel Ranch Variety of wildlife, Kgalagadi camel, wilderness built campsites game and sight viewing, camel rides and photographic safaris Nature & culturalheritage Kaa Kalahari Concession Area Kalahari scenery, enclose three settlements of Ukwi, Ngwatle & Ncaang, and Masetlheng Pan & wilderness site, large numbers of desert animals and birds, unique desert landscape features-popular for photography, hunting and wilderness camping Nature & cultural-based heritage BORAVAST Hoodia project & tourist attraction Hoodia cordonii gardens, desert landscape, unique undulating red soil ridges/mount Nature & culturalheritage Kang tourist site Lerucama game ra nch, desert wild animals, birds & nature-scape and wilderness camping Nature & culturalheritage Berry Bush camel ranch & built tourist campsite Wildlife, camel and wilderness campsite, anthropological remains Nature & heritage
128 Table 3-5. Data collection for local residents (October 2008 January 2009) Week Location/villages # of surveys 1. Ncaang 37 2. Ukhwi 59 3. Zutshwa 55 4. Tshane 89 5. Khawa 75 6. Struizendam 44 7 Bokspits 53 8 & 9 Tsabong 212 10, 11 & 12 Kang 122 TOTAL 746
129 Table 3-6. Data collection for the public sector Date Village/town Time Organization 11/13/2008 Ukhwi 10:00 Ukhwi cu stomary courtKgotla 11/15/2008 Zutshwa 16:18 Xaxe! Trust (community-based Organization) 11/18/2008 Hukuntsi 14.00 Wildlife Department (Sub office) 11/20/2008 Khawa 8:20 Khawa Development Trust 11/28/2008 Struizendam 11:40 Village Development committee 11/28/2008 Struizendam 10:00 Struizendam customary Kgotla 11/28/2008 KTP-Two Rivers 16:00 Department of Wildlife National Park 11/29/2008 Struizendam 13:00 Farmers Association 11/30/2008 Bokspits 12:00 Bokspits Customary court 12/03/2008 Tsabong 10:45 Community Development & Outreach Unit (DWNP) 12/14/2008 Kang 12:00 Kang Customary Court 12/29/2008 Tsabong 10:00 Kgalagadi Land board 12/29/2008 Tsabong 16:30 Tsabong Customary court Kgotla 10/30/2008 Gaborone 14:00 Botswana Tourism Board 12/10/2008 Gaborone 9:00 Department of Wildlife & National Parks (Park Unit) 12/10/2008 Gaborone 10:00 Department of Wildlife & National Parks (CBNRM) 01/23/2008 Gaborone 15:00 Department of Environmental Affairs (NCSA) 01/27/2008 Gaborone 14:00 Ministry of Environment, Wildlife & Tourism
130 Table 3-7. Sampling for local residents per village, household and population Village/settlements Total village Population (N) Total households (N)* 30% of households Household sampled Approx. Distance to KTP (KM) North Kgalagadi Ncaang 175 43 13 37 250 Ukhwi 453 114 34 59 90 Zutshwa 469 118 35 55 75 Tshane 858 209 63 89 160 Kang 3,744 913 274 122(82)** 280 South Kgalagadi Khawa 517 128 39 75 21 Struizendam 313 76 23 44 23 Bokspits 499 122 37 53 53 Tsabong 6,591 1,608 482 212(145)** 300 Total (9) 13,619 3, 331 1000 746 Household estimate = total population/4.1; Note : ** Number in parentheses is 30% of the original 30%.
131 Table 3-8. Operationalization of variable s: survey questions and measurements Residents Measurement level and type Village/settlements Nominal 9 categor ies (Ncaang, Ukhwi, Zutshwa; Tshane) Age Scale Gender Nominal (male, female) Ethnicity Nominal (Basar wa; Bangologa; Baherero) Residency Scale (No of years) Level of education Ordinal (no schooling; primary; secondary; vocational) Distance Scale (kilometers) Income Ordinal (>P500; P501-P1000 ) Employment status Ordinal (Formal, part time; self employed; unemployed) Ecotourism knowledge Nominal 3 categories (No; Yes; Dont know): 11 questions Potential concern Interval 5-point Like rt scale (Not at a ll concerned.): 5 items Participation (Use levels) Nominal yes/no; Reasons for visit & frequency of visit yes/no Conservation attitudes Interval 5-point Likert scal es (strongly disagree to strongly agree): 16 items. Perception about CBE Interval 5-point Likert scales (strongly disagree to strongly agree): 14 items. Support for KTP Interval 5-point Likert s cale (strongly oppose; to strongly support): 5 items Support for CBE Interval 5-point Likert scale (strongly oppose to strongly support): 6 items Table 3-9. Sampling frame: respondents and instruments Local Residents Public Sector Villages Households Local Community-based Organizations National Ministry of Environment, Wildlife & Tourism Village development committees Department of Environmental Affairs Community Development & Outreach Unit Department of Wildlife (National Parks Division) Wildlife & National Parks Department of Wildlife (Community development Unit) KTP Two Rivers Sector Customary Court Headmen Botswana Tourism Board Systematic sampling Purposive sampling Purposive sampling Household survey In-depth interviews In-depth interviews
132 Table 3-10. Public Sector st akeholder interview questions What do you think of Kgalagadi Transfrontie r Park (KTP) as a Trans-boundary Park? What do you consider to be the 3 majo r things that you like about KTP? What do you consider to be the 3 majo r things that you dislike about KTP What are your opinions about the current management of KTP? What is the role of your orga nization in CBNRM programs? What is your knowledge about Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE)? What is the role of your orga nization in CBE development? What CBE initiatives or projects are in practice in your area? What are the accrued benefits by residents fr om CBNRM and CBO initiatives in your area What benefits does your community obtain from KTP? What is the potential for CBE development in your area? CBNRM is the right approach for wildlife conservation Yes ; No; Not Sure Give reasons________________________________________________________________ Table 3-11. Reliability analysis for respondents perceptions a bout community-based ecotourism development Statements Mean SD Corrected Item-total correlation Alpha if item Deleted CBE increases income and standard of living in the community. 3.93 0.81 0.56 0.83 CBE increases job opportunities for the community. 3.87 0.88 0.62 0.82 CBE promotes equal sharing of benefits from community projects 3.64 0.93 0.51 0.83 CBE provides educational experiences for the local community. 4.02 0.80 0.13 0.84 CBE enhances the quality of life of local communities. 3.78 0.84 0.32 0.83 CBE promotes meeting new people & increases cultural exchange. 4.11 0.72 0.38 0.82 CBE improves understanding & image of my community. 3.89 0.83 0.18 0.84 CBE enhances local arts & crafts in local communities. 4.02 0.79 0.31 0.83 CBE provides casual earning opportunities by 3.82 0.92 0.26 0.83
133 selling grass, crafts, firewood, berries, mahupu. CBE protects & supports wildlife resources. 4.18 0.59 0.52 0.83 CBE supports conservation of forest or veldt resources. 4.14 0.59 0.51 0.83 CBE increases support for natural resources conservation. 4.12 0.62 0.47 0.83 Overall Index M=3.9 SD=0.47 =0.84 SD Standard Deviation.
134 Table 3-12. Reliability analysis for res pondents conservation attitudes to KTP Statements Mean SD C orrecte d I te m -total c orrelatio n Alpha if item Deleted KTP should be protected fo r benefit of our future generations. 4.51 0.59 0.34 0.71 KTP conservation has taken our land from us*. 3.63 1.06 0.33 0.70 It is important to protect KTP for survival of plants. 4.11 0.69 0.33 0.71 Farmers dont have land to cultivate and graze livestock due to KTP*. 3.65 1.08 0.43 0.69 Staff from KTP has done nothing for villagers lives*. 3.04 1.10 0.25 0.71 People who illegally kill a nd eat wild animals in KTP should not be fined or jailed *. 3.89 1.21 0.27 0.72 KTP is for tourists and we are not allowed to visit*. 4.01 0.82 0.28 0.71 It is better to have some parts of land in KTP allocated to the local people to use for agriculture*. 3.62 1.11 0.42 0.69 If hunting and grazing in KTP is allowed then wildlife will disappear. 4.06 0.89 0.36 0.70 If there is unlimited access to forest resources in KTP (firewood, medicinal plants, forest foods), then they will all disappear. 3.94 0.92 0.32 0.72 It is important for government to devote more money toward a strong a conservation program for KTP. 4.11 0.76 0.30 0.71 KTP provides jobs to people from the village. 3.18 1.13 0.33 0.71 KTP is being managed for the local people. 3.09 1.10 0.35 0.70 I am happy to have my village next to KTP. 3.90 0.77 0.28 0.71 It is important to protect KTP for the survival of wildlife. 4.21 0.71 0.34 0.71 Overall Index M=3.8SD=0.43 =0.72 Items reverse coded prior to anal ysis. Note: Standard Deviation.
135 Table 3-13. Reliability analysis fo r level of concern about tourism Statements Mean SD Item-total correlation Alpha if item Deleted Destroy our environment 3.37 1.33 0.63 0.73 Change our cultural traditions 3.56 1.33 0.58 0.75 Increase social ills (e.g. crime) 4.14 1.09 0.60 0.74 Increase incidences of HIV/AIDS infection 4.33 1.06 0.56 0.75 Loss of grazing land for our livestock if more hotels and lodges are rebuilt. 3.53 1.26 0.49 0.77 Overall Index M =3.78 SD =0.89 =0.79 SD Standard Deviation Table 3-14. Reliability analysis for respondent s support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park Statements Mean SD Corrected Item-total correlation Alpha if item Deleted Support conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park 3.61 1.20 0.472 0.66 Support current management staff at KTP 3.61 0.93 0.553 0.61 Support creation of Buffer zone and wildlife management areas (WMAs) 3.87 0.86 0.299 0.71 Support regulation and guide lines to maintain KTP as a Transfrontier Park 3.75 0.98 0.609 0.58 Support protection of KTP as conservation area 4.23 0.59 0.410 0.68 Overall Index M=3.8 SD=0.63 =.70 SD Standard Deviation. Table 3-15. Reliability analysis for responde nts support for community-based ecotourism development Statements Mean SD Corrected Item-total correlation Alpha if item Deleted CBE promotes preservation of local cultures & traditions 4.0 0.64 0.65 0.84 CBE promotes environmental education within local communities 4.0 0.79 0.62 0.85 CBE encourages local participation in tourism planning & development 4.1 0.69 0.67 0.84 CBE promotes collective income for the community 3.9 0.75 0.70 0.83 CBE encourages conservation of natural resources 3.9 0.82 0.64 0.85 CBE promotes preservation of local culture and traditions 4.2 0.64 0.69 0.84 Overall Index M=4.0 SD=0.56 =0.86 Standard Deviation.
136 Table 3-16. Constructs and reliabilities Constructs/Indices* # of items Mean SD Reliability ( ) # of cases Perception index 12 3.96 0.47 0.84 730 Conservation attitude index 15 3.80 0.43 0.72 734 Concern index 5 3.78 0.88 0.79 745 Support for KTP index 5 3.80 0.63 0.70 742 Support for CBE index 6 4.0 0.56 0.86 739 Standard Deviation. Table 3-17. Correlation matrix es of constructs indices Indices Concern index Support for KTP index Support for CBE index Perception Index Conservation attitude index Concern index 1.00 Support for KTP index 0.217*** 1.00 Support for CBE index 0.124*** 0.376*** 1.00 Perception index 0.095** 0.259*** 0.554*** 1.00 Conservation attitude index -0.007 0.397*** 0.406*** 0.448*** 1.00 ***= P<0.001 **=P<0.01 *=P<0.05
137 Table 3-18. Visitor lodging facilities a nd activities Name of village Ownership Guesthouse/ lodge Built campsites & campground Campground with longdrop shower, pitlatrine & Boma Struizendam Local Kgalagadi birdsong Kgalagadi birdsong Kgalagadi birdsong Community4 Guesthouse Bokspits Community Guesthouse Khawa Community Guesthouse KKDT/CBO Safari hunters campsite Zutshwa Community guesthouse Xaxe! Trust/CBO guesthouse campsite Safari hunters campsite Ncaang Community guesthouse Safari hunters campsite Ukhwi Community guesthouse NKXT Trust/CBO Guesthouse campsite Safari hunters campsite and tourist campsites Tshane Community Guesthouse Tshane pan tourist campground Kang Joint Ownership Insigi Guesthouse Local Kang guest house Local Echo lodge Joint Ownership Ultrastop lodge complex Tourist restcamp Tsabong local Guest house local Desert motel local Diana guesthouse Local Mokha lodge Foreign owned Guesthouse Berrybush built campsite Berrybush camp & camel farm 4 Community Refers to a facility that is owned by the Village Development Committee partially funded by District Council Office.
138 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter presents results in two sections: Quantitative and Qualitative. Data were collected from two stakeholder groups (resident s and public sector). Th e results are analyzed, summarized and presented in this chapter. Profile of Residents A total of 746 of household surveys were co m pleted with a response rate of 75%. The socio-demographic characteristics of the respond ents are presented in Table 4-1. Based on the total sample, there were more females (55%) than males (45%). The difference in gender could be cultural, since during the time of the survey male household heads were at work in farms, fields, cattle-posts, while females stayed home to tend to household chores and children. Also, in rural Botswana, it is common for men to out-migrate to other towns and villages in search of job opportunities. The youngest respondent was 18 and the oldest wa s 92 years of age, with 41% in the age bracket of 18-30 and 24% in the 31-40 age bracket. The 41-50 age group was the third largest and constituted 16% of the total sample. Residents w ho were 61 years and older were representative of 10% of the total sample. The median age was within the age bracket of 3140 years. Thirtytwo percent of the resp ondents lived in a household with 57 persons; 30% lived in a household size of 2-4 persons, and about 9% lived alone. Literacy levels varied by village/settle ment, and there were vast differences across communities. Sixteen percent had no formal sc hooling, 21% had attained primary education, 32% had junior certificate (U.S. Grade 8), 18% had secondary educa tion equivalent to the United States high school education. Only 6% of the respondents had some form of university education.
139 A total of 31% indicated involvement in formal employment, 25% were unemployed, 24% were self employed, and 19% had part-time em ployment. In addition, 80% of the respondents noted that 1-2 persons in the household had a job, and 10.5% reported that 3-4 persons in their home had paid employment. Respondents (26%) reported a total househol d monthly income in Botswana currency (i.e. Pula) of less than P5001 (U.S.$71), followed by 16% in the range of P501P1000 (U.S.$71-143). Thirty percent had total household in comes that exceeded P3000 (U.S.$429). Overall, the total monthly household income displayed two extreme cases: very low total income for some residents, and very high for other members of the community. The median monthly household income ranged betw een P1001P1500 (U.S.$143 U.S.$214). Respondents were from Tsabong (28%), Ka ng (16%), Tshane (12%), Khawa (10%), Ukhwi (8%), Zutshwa (7%), Bokspits (7%), Struizendam (6%), and Ncaang (5%) villages With regard to respondents ethnicitie s, the highly represented group was Bakgalagadi (28%), followed by Batlharo (Batlhware) (21%), Bangologa (14 %), Coloureds (13%) and San/Basarwa (7%). Approximately 67% of the respondents were native residents, born and raised in Kgalagadi as children. Seventeen percent had live d in the Kgalagadi for 1-5 years, while 10% had lived in area for at least 10 years. Length of residency in the study area averaged 28.5 years. Residents had lived in the community from a 12 month period to 85 years. Finally, the majority of the respondents (73%) had knowledge or could estimate the distance of their respective villages to KTP in kilometers. About twelve percent of the respondents noted that thei r villages were located less than 30 kilometers from KTP, and 23% of them lived about 120 km away from KTP. Howeve r, about 27% indicated that they did not know because they had never visited the Park. 1 Botswana Pula (US$1.00 ~ BWP 7.00)
140 Frequencies of Variables: Residents Ecotourism Knowledge Respondents were asked knowledge-based questions about ecotourism and related activities in their various communities and the re sults are summarized in Table 4-2. Nearly all respondents (96%) indicated that accommodation establishments we re available in their area, while 55% expressed knowledge of availability of campsites in their respective villages. The majority of respondents (76%) repo rted that they were aware that many Batswana (citizens) visit Kgalagadi district strictly fo r meetings, funerals and busines s activities. About 56% of the residents reported to be aware that many people from the Kgalagadi visit their area for recreation and tourism. Approximately 44% of the respondent s were aware that people who visit the Park (KTP) stay and utilize lo dging facilities and services available in their villages. Residents (61%) were not aware2 of a cultural village for tour ism in the Kgalagadi district. Most respondents (46%) noted that KTP doe s not provide opportunities for community development programs or projects in their comm unities, while 25% indicat ed that they did not know of any programs. A sizeable number of re spondents (44%) indicated that community-based revenues did not benefit many members of their community; while 23% did not know of tourism benefits accruing for the community. Also, approxim ately 35% indicated that they did not know if community-owned campsites outside KTP accrued more money from visitors and tourists. The majority of the residents (89%) perceived eco tourism as an important industry in their communities. Also, many residents (88%) were of the opinion that community-based ecotourism is essential in their respective village/settlements. 2 Those who answered yes to this question may also have been referring to individually built cultural heritage properties that were not necessarily fo r tourists (Bokspits, personal comm.)
141 Perceptions about Community-Based Ecotourism Residents level of perceptions towards comm unity-based ecotourism development was measured with 14 items. The items were created using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Table 4-6). Nearly all respondents (95%) agreed that CBE ha s the potential to help communities protect their wildlife resources. Similarly, almost all re spondents (93%) agreed that CBE supports conservation of forest resources. Additionally, 92% agreed that CBE increases support for natural resources conservation. The majority of respondents (82%) agreed th at CBE development has the potential to increase income and the standard of living in their community. Mo st (81%) agreed that CBE has the potential to increase jobs in the villages. Also, 66% felt that CBE would promote equal sharing of benefits accrued from ecotourism-re lated community projects. However, 21% were neutral (neither agree nor disagr ee) whether CBE promotes equita ble sharing of benefits. Eightythree percent of the respondents agreed that CBE has the potential to provide educational experiences for local people. About 77% agreed that CBE enhances quality of life of local residents. Thirteen percent of the respondents were neutral. Most (79%) ag reed that CBE provides casual earning opportunities by selli ng grass, craft, firewood, berri es and other forest foods. A significant number of respondent s (90%) agreed that CBE ha s the potential to promote cultural exchange. Similarly, 83% agreed that CBE can improve understanding and image of their local communities. Also, the majority (87%) ag reed that CBE can encourage production of regional arts and crafts in local communities. Finally, only 25% agreed that CBE discourages preservation of cultural resources. Conservation Attitudes This construct was used to assess the gene ral conservation attitude s (16 question items) of residents towards KTP as a Transfrontier prot ected area. The items were based on a 5-point
142 Likert-type scale that ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 5= str ongly agree. Re-coding of items was employed such that positive and negative st atements with higher scores indicated higher levels of attitudes (pro or anti conservation) (Table 4-5). The vast majority of the respondents (98%) agreed3 that KTP should be conserved for future generations. About 70% disagreed4 that conservation and protection of KTP had taken land from the local community. Similarly, 71% disagr eed that farmers do not have land to cultivate and graze their livestock due to KT P, while 20% agreed. Respondents were also asked to put forth their views about whether it would be better if some parts of the land in KTP were allocated to communities to utilize for agriculture. A sizeable percentage of respondents (69%) disagreed that parts of land from KTP should be allocated for agriculture, while 23% agreed. Furthermore, almost all respondents (94%) agreed that it is important to protect KTP in order to safeguard wildlife resources. Most (92%) agreed that it is im portant to protect KTP fo r survival of plants. About 87% of the sampled residents agreed th at if hunting of wild animals and grazing of livestock was permitted within the confines of KTP, then wild animals would disappear. Similarly, the majority (85%) al so agreed that unlimited access to the forest resources (e.g. collecting fuel wood, medicinal plan ts, herbal teas, etc,) inside KT P would lead to disappearance of resources in the Park. Most respondents (90%) also agreed that the government should allocate more monetary resources for a vigor ous conservation program at KTP. In order to establish if communities were trul y inclined to conservation of KTP, they were asked: People who illegally kill and eat wild animals from KTP should not be fined or jailed? Most respondents (80%) disagree d with the statement. However, 16% of the respondents agreed 3 Agreed (strongly agree and agree responses combined) 4 Disagreed (strongly disagree and disagree responses combined)
143 that illegal hunters should not be convicted for poaching of wild animals. Respondents were also presented with benefit-related questions. A bout 51% agreed that KTP provides employment opportunities in the community, while 36% disagr eed. Approximately, 44% agreed that KTP was managed for local people. Eighty-si x percent of the respondents disagr eed that KTP is for tourists and they are not allowed to visit. Additionally, respondents were asked to give their views with regards to proximity/distance of their village fr om KTP. A substantial number (82%) were happy to have their village next to the KTP. However, 43% disagreed that staff from KTP had done nothing for the villagers, while 37% agreed and 20% were neutral. Community Concern Residents were presented with 5-point likerttype statements designed to assess level of potential concern for their community if tourism were to increase (Table 4-3). Most respondents expressed varying concerns about potential gr owth of tourism in the community. About 60% expressed concern5 that tourism has the potential to da mage the local environment. Loss of grazing land for livestock if mo re hotels and infrastructure were built was a concern for 65% of the respondents. Also, residents (66%) were con cerned that tourism woul d cause changes in the local cultural traditions A substantial number (83%) expressed concern about possible increases in social ills, especially crime in the communit y. The majority of the re sidents (87%) were very concerned that tourism is likely to increas e incidences of HIV/AIDS infections. In addition, respondents were asked an open-en ded question designed to identify the major potential concern if tourism was increased in th eir area. Respondents were free to discuss major potential concerns about tourism. Three major concerns surfaced: possible increase in incidence of HIV/AIDS infections (33%), increase in soci al ills i.e. crime (24%), and loss of grazing land 5 Concerned (extremely concerned and very concerned responses combined)
144 for livestock (11%). When probed further, respon dents indicated their aspirations to have a well rounded tourism industry that could create jobs and improve lives within their communities. Participation (Use Levels) Respondents use levels or participation in activities at KTP was also m easured. About 58% indicated that they had neve r visited the Park in their lifetime, while 42% had visited. About 23% visited KTP for the purposes of recreation/tourism, 24% visite d to see wild animals, birds and nature and 19% had visited for shopping, visiti ng friends and relatives, attending funeral and purchasing gasoline. Almost all respondents (99%) had never been inside the KTP for veldt or forest food collection. According to Botswanas conservation policies and National Park Act (1992), collection of natural resources, such as fuel wood, grass, timber and others, is not permitted in any protected and conservation areas Also, 97% of the respondents never visited KTP for any meetings associated wi th Park management (Table 4-4). Respondents were also asked to indicate the frequency of their visits to KTP based on the previous twelve-month period for recreation/tourism. The majori ty (92%) of the respondents indicated they had not taken any trips to KTP in the previous 12-month period. Among those who had visited, only 9% entered the park to see wi ldlife, birds or nature, while 4% visited for recreation/tourism activities. Ot her respondents (6%) had entered the Park only once for other reasons, such as shopping, attending a funeral, visiti ng friends and relatives, or when in-transit to other villages and towns in South Africa. Of those who had visited the Park at least 3 times in the previous 12 month-period, 4% had vis ited for wildlife viewing and nature. Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park Residents level of support for KTP as a Tr ans-boundary Park included 5 items measured by a 1 to 5-point Likert-type scale. Results showed variation in re sidents responses with regards to support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park (T able 4-7). The majority of respondents (95%)
145 expressed support6 for protection of KTP as a conservation area. Seventy-two percent indicated that they were supportive of KTP as a Transfrontie r Park. However, 21% opposed7 KTPs status as a Trans-boundary protected area. Sixteen percent indicated that they opposed and/or were not in favor of the current management staff at KTP. Nonetheless, 65% of them expressed support of the current KTP management staff. The results al so show that a substantial number of respondents (78%) were supportive of the cr eation of KTP buffer zones a nd Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs); while 73% indicated that they supported regulations and guidelines that maintain KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Additionally, respondents were asked an open-en ded question in order to assess level of awareness of the creation of KTP as a Transf rontier Park. They were asked: Why was KTP created? (Table 4-8). Generally, most of the respondents (75%) were conversant and noted that KTP was created for conservation of wildlife and plant resources. Only 8% indicated that KTP was established for ecotourism. However, 11% of the respondents expre ssed lack of knowledge about why the Park was converted in to a Transfrontier Park (TFP). Support for Community-Based Ecotourism Development The level of support for community-based eco tourism development consisted of 6 items, measured on a 5 point Likert-type scale (Table 49). About 90% of the residents indicated support and noted that CBE promotes lo cal community involvement in t ourism activities, while only 7% were neutral. The majority (84%) supported the notion that CBE promotes preservation of local culture and traditions. About 88% expressed support that CBE promotes environmental education for the local community. Most re spondents (83%) indi cated support that CBE encourages local 6 Support (strongly support and support responses combined) 7 Oppose (Strongly oppose and oppose responses combined)
146 participation in tourism planning and development, while 12% of them were neutral. In addition, 78% supported the idea that CBE can promote collect ive incomes for local pe ople. Nearly all the respondents (94%) supported the idea that CBE encourages conservation of natural resources. Results of Hypotheses Testing Residents The prim ary purpose of this empirical study was to examine the relationship between independent and dependent variables in the conceptu al models (see Chapter 1) to assess residents support for CBE development, and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. To reiterate, the dependent variable support for community-based ecotourism development index was used in both Pearson (r) co rrelation and regression analysis, and consisted of six items measured on a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale. The second dependent variable, support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park index had five items, and was also measured on a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale. Mean scores or indices were calculated for each dependent and independent variable in the model except for gender, educat ion and participation. The mean substitution was used in regression analysis as the proporti on of missing values was very sm all (Field, 2005; Meyers at al., 2006), and Tabachnick & Fidell (2 001). Gender, education and participation were dummy coded (1 and 0) in the regression analysis. For the purposes of this research, first P earson (r) correlation was used to test for associations between each respons e and the criterion vari ables in the conceptual models. Second, two standard multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to test for variables predictive ability. The first standard multiple regression analysis used support for CBE development index (Figure 1-1) as the dependent variable, while perception index, conservation attitude index, community concern index and participation were the independent variables. The sociodemographic variables were age, gender, education, residency and distance/proximity. These
147 variables are considered essential in this study because they can help to predict support for CBE development and KTP. The second standard mulptiple regression analysis had s upport for KTP as a Transfrontier Park index (Figure 1-2) as a dependent variable, and socio-demographic variables were similar to the previous regression analysis. Support for community-based ecotourism development a) Perception about CBE Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive asscociation between perception about CBE and support for comm unity-based ecotourism development. Pearsons correlation(r) was performed, where s upport for CBE development index was correlated with perception of CBE index The results indicated that a statistically significant relationship existed (Table 4-10). Perception about CBE index had a very strong positive effect (r=0.55, p<0.001) on support for CBE development index. The results showed that the hypothesis was supported as it indicated that a positive association existed between perception about CBE development and support for CBE development The more positive the respondents perceptions were about CBE, the more likely they held support for CBE development. b) Conservation Attitude Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive association be tween conservation attitude towards KTP and support for CBE development. Pearson correlation (r) was employed to test the hypothesis which evaluated association between support for CBE development index and conservation attitude index. Results noted a strong positive and statistically signifi cant association (r=0.41, p=0.001) between conservation attitudes and support for CBE development The hypothesis was supported as a positive association was observed (Table 4-10). The more positive residents were about conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park, the more support they expressed about CBE development. This finding implies that those who displayed favorable attitude towards conservation of KTP as a
148 Transfrontier Park were likely to perceive CBE as beneficial, and thus would express positive support for CBE development. c) Community Concern Hypothesis 3: There will be a negative association be tween level of community concern about tourism and support for CBE development. Hypothesis 3 was tested using Pear sons correlation(r) to ev aluate the association between support for CBE development index and community concern index. The correlation analysis identified a positive and statistically significant relationship between community concern index and support for CBE development index (r=0.12, p=0.001). The results indicated that even if residents expressed concern about potential increase in tourism in their community, they were still more likely to support CBE development. Henc e, the hypothesis was not supported because a positive relationship was observed (Table 4-10). d) Participation (Use levels) Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive association betw een participation (use level) and support for CBE development. Participation was a dichotomous variable which represented whether respondents had visited KTP in the past or had not. This variable was dummy coded with t hose who had visited as 1, and those who had not as 0. The correlation analysis showed no statistical Association between participation (use level ) and support for CBE development index (r=0.01, p>0.05) (Table 4-11). Residents who participated in activities at KTP were likely not to support CBE development. The hypothesis was not supported, as relationship between participation (use level) and support for CBE development did not exist (Table 4-10). e) Selected Socio-Demographic variables Hypothesis 5 (a e): There will be significant associations between the co-variates (i.e., age, gender, education, residency, distance/proxim ity) and support for community-based ecotourism development.
149 Hypotheses 5(a-e) were tested using Pearsons correlations (r) to evaluate the associations between the selected socio-economic variables and support for CBE development. Age, gender and education were dummy coded. a) Age It was hypothesized that age will have a negative association with support for CBE development, with younger residents like ly to express support. S upport for CBE development index was regressed on age. The results of the correlation analysis indicate d a positive and significant association between age and support for CBE development index (r=0.08, p<0.01). The hypothesis was not supported because th ere was a positive association between age and support for CBE development index. Increase in age equated to mo re residents support for CBE development (Table 4-10). b) Gender It was hypothesized that gender will have a positive association with support for CBE development, with more males than females likely to support CBE development. S upport for CBE development index was correlated with gender Results indicated a l ack of statistically significant association (r=0.02, p>0.05) between gender and support for CBE development index The hypothesis was not supported because gender did not have any association with support for CBE development (Table 4-10). c) Education It was hypothesized that level of educa tion will have a positiv e association with support for CBE development, with residents who had secondary or higher education likely to show support. Support for CBE development index was correlated with level of education and results showed that a statistically significan t association existed (r=-0.14, p<0.001). Support for CBE
150 development was influenced negatively by level of education, and the hypothesis was not supported. The more educated residents were, the less support they held for CBE development in their area (Table 4-10). d) Residence It was hypothesized that length of residence would have a positive association with support for CBE development index, with long time residency likely to express support The association between support for CBE development index and length of residence was tested The analysis indicated a positive and statistically significant association between residents length of residency and support for CBE development index (r=0.11, p < 0.01) (Table 410). The results supported the hypothesis because the longer residents lived in th e community, the more they were likely to express support for CBE development. e) Distance/Proximity It was hypothesized that a positive asso ciation existed betw een distance/proximity of villages to KTP and support for CBE development index, with support increasing with distance from KTP. The Pearson r correlation was performed between support for CBE development index and distance/proximity The hypothesis was rejected as the resu lts indicated a lack of statistically significant associati on (r=.-0.03, p>0.05). Distance/proximity of villages to KTP did not have a direct effect on residents support for CBE development (Table 4-10). An additional analysis was perfomed in whic h a standard multiple linear regression was conducted with all research variables (p erception of CBE, conservation attitudes, community concern participation ), and covariates ( age, gender, education, residency, distance/proximity ) to determine the best predictive validity of the dependent variables (Figure 1-1). Explanatory variables: participation, gender and educa tion were dummy coded as (0 and 1), and
151 distance/proximity was in kilometers. All predictors were entered into the model to examine the models ability to predict the outcome (Field, 2005). Based on the enter method, multiple regression was calculated and a st atistically significant regressi on equation was obtained [F (9, 736) = 45, 43, p <0.000 with R=.357 and adjusted R = 0.349], and the model explained 35% of the total variance (see Table 4-11) indicating the weaker predic tive ability of the model. For all the research variables in the model, perception of CBE index ( =0.446, p<0.001), conservation attitudes index ( = 0.218, p<0.001) and community concern index ( =0.058, p<0.01) were positive and also statistically significant predictors of residents support for CBE development L ength of residence in the community also had a positive and statistically significant relationship with support for CBE development ( =0.142, p<0.001). However, participation (Use level ) was not a significant predictor. None of the following sociodemographic variables age, gender, level of education and distance/proximity was statistically significant. However, in the analysis age and level of education were statistically significant predictors of residents support for CBE development Thus, residents support for CBE development was predicted by the perception of CBE conservation attitudes, community concern and length of residency (Figure 4-1). In all, participation, age, gender, level of education and distance/proximity were not good predictors of residents support for CBE development (Table 411). Summary of results for conceptual model 1 Results of the multiple linear regression analysis in Table 4-11 showed that the model is a significant predictor of residents support for CBE development (F (9, 736) = 45, 43, p <0.001). The predictor variables explained 35.7% (i.e. R=0.357) of th e variation in the model. Based on the regression analysis, perception of CBE was the best predictor to the total model ( =0.446, p <0.001), followed by conservation attitudes ( =0.218, p <0.001), length of residency ( =0.142,
152 p< 0.001), and community concern ( =0.058, p <0.05). It is im portant to note that participation, age, gender, level of education or distance/proximity showed statistically significant predictive validity in the conceptual model. In all, Pearsons correlati on revealed that overall, hypothe ses 3 (community concern), 4 (Participation), 5a (age), 5b (ge nder), 5c (education) and 5e (d istance) were not supported. Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park f) Perception about CBE Hypothesis 6: There will be a positive association be tween perception about CBE and support for KTP as a Transfrontier park. Pearsons correlation(r) was performed between perception about CBE index and support for conservation of KTP index Results of the analysis identified a positive and statistically significant association between perception about CBE and support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier protected area (r=0.26, p<0.001) (Table 4-12). The hypothesis was supported because as perceptions about CBE increases, the support for KTP increases. Thus, residents with positive perceptions about CBE were likely to express support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. g) Conservation attitude Hypothesis 7: There will be a positive association betw een conservation attit ude toward KTP and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Pearsons correlation(r) was performed between s upport for conservation of KTP index and conservation attitude index, and results showed a positive and st atistically significant relationship (r =0.39, p<0.001). C onservation attitudes were significantly a ssociated with support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. The hypothesis was supported as increas e in pro-conservation attitudes led to more support for KTP as a Tran sfrontier Park (see Table 4-12). h) Community concern
153 Hypothesis 8: There will be a negative association between level of community concern and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Pearsons correlation (r ) was performed between support for conservation of KTP index and level of community concern index. The results revealed a positive and statistically significant association between level of community concern and support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park (r= 0.22, p< 0.001) (Table 4-12). The hypothesis was not supported because a positive relationship was observed. The result sugg ested that, while residents were concerned about the potential cost of touris m increase in their community, they were still likely to express support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park. i) Participation (use level) Hypothesis 9: There will be a positive association betw een participation (use level) of KTP and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Pearsons correlation (r) was performed to between participation (use level) and support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park index. The results showed a lack of statistically significant association between participation (use level) and support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park index (r= 0.03, p>0.05). The hypothesis was not supported; as there was no association between participation (use level) and support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park (Table 4-12). j) Selected Socio-demographic variables Hypothesis 10 (a-e): There will be significant associations between the co-variates (i.e., age, gender, education, residency, distance/proximity) and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Hypotheses 5(a-e) were tested using Pearsons correlation (r) to evaluate the associations between the selected socio-economic variables an d support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Age, gender and education were dummy coded. a) Age
154 It was hypothesized that a negati ve association existed between age and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park index with older residents likely to express support Pearsons correlation (r) was performed and analysis revealed that age and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park were positively related (r=0.09, p<0.05) (Table 4-12). The hypothesis was not supported because positive relationship was observed between age and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. The probability of support for KTP as a Transfrontie r protected area increased with age of the residents. Elderly people were likely to express support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. b) Gender It was hypothesized that a positiv e association ex isted between support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park and gender, with more males than females likely to support KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Pearsons correlation results showed that gender had a positive and statistically significant association with support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park (r=0.08, p <0.02) (Table 4-12). The hypothe sis was supported because a positive association was observed in which males were more likely to express support of KTP. c) Education It was hypothesized that a positiv e association ex isted between support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park and level of education, with residents with sec ondary or higher education likely to support KTP as a Transfrontier Par k. Pearsons correlation was performed between s upport for KTP as a Transfrontier Park ind ex and level of education and a negative and statistically significant relationship existed (r= -0.16, p< 0.001) (Table 4-12). The hypothesis was not supported because a negative relationship was observed. The more educated residents were, the less support they were likely to e xpress for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. d) Residence
155 It was hypothesized that a posit ive association existed between support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park and length of residence, with longer time residency likely to express support. Pearsons correlation was performed between support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park index and length of residence The analysis revealed a lack of statistically significant association between support for KTP as a Transfrontie r Park and length of residency (r=0.04, p> 0.05) (Table 4-12). The hypothesis wa s not supported because length of residence does not have an effect on support for conservation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park. e) Distance/Proximity It was hypothesized that there will be a positive association between support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park index and distance/proximity of villages to KTP, w ith support increasing with distance from KTP. Pearson s correlation was performed s upport for KTP as a Transfrontier Park index and distance/proximity The results revealed a statistically significant association (r=-0.120, p< 0.001) (Table 4-12), and the negative asso ciation indicated an oppos ite relationship. The s upport for KTP as a Transfrontier Park decreased with distance away from KTP. Thus the hypothesis was rejected, because the closer the co mmunities were to KTP, the more support they held for KTP as a Transboundary Park. In conceptual model 2, a standard multiple linear regression analysis was conducted with all independent variables and c ovariates to determine the be st predictors for residents support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. The dependent variable was regressed on the fo llowing explanatory variables: perception of CBE index conservation attitude index concern index and participation and with socio-demographic variables: age, gender, level of educa tion, length of residence and distance/proximity (Figure 1-2) It is important to note that ex planatory variables (participation, gender, education) were dummy coded as (0 and 1). Based on the regression analysis, and using
156 the enter method, a statistically significant m odel was revealed [F (9,736) = 26,307, p< 0.001), R = 0.243 and adjusted R =0.234], and explained 24.3% of the total variance (Table 4-13). The support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park was positively affected by conservation attitudes ( =0.351, p< 0.001), community concern ( =0.201, p< 0.001) and perception of CBE ( =0.091, P< 0.05) which were all statistica lly significant. There was a lack of a statistically significant relationship between support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park and participation (use level). For socio-demographic variables, only age and length of residency indicated a lack of a statistically significant relationship with the dependent variable. However, gender, l evel of education and distance/proximity were found to have statistically signi ficant effects on the dependent variable. S upport for KTP as a Transfrontier Park was influenced negatively by both level of education and distance/proximity Overall, the factors that influence residents support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park were conservation attitude community concern, perception of CBE, gender, level of education and distance/proximity. The three variables ; participation, age and length of residence were not good predictors of support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Summary of results for conceptual model 2 Multiple regression analysis in Table 4-13 revealed that this model is a significant predictor of residents support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park FP [F (9,736) = 26.307, p< 0.001)]. The independent variables explained 24.3% (i.e. R=0.243) of the total variability in the dependent variable, and model has a weaker predictive ability. Ba sed on the results, conservation attitude was the best predictor and contributed highly to the predictive ability of the conceptual model ( =0.351, p< 0.001), followed by community concern ( =0.201, p<0.001), and perception of CBE ( =0.091, p< 0.05). Among the socio-demographic variables, distance/proximity, level of education and gender showed significant relationships with the support for KTP as a
157 Transfrontier Park However, participation, age and length of residence were not significant predictors (Table 4-13). Also, results of Pearsons correlation reve aled that overall, hypotheses 3 (community concern), 4 (Participation), 5a (age), 5c (educa tion), 5d (residency) and 5e (distance) were all rejected. Public Sector The selected representatives for this study included adm inistrators extension workers, farmers, technical advisors, mana gers, local authorities and village leaders. Collectively, thirteen representatives were selected and interviewed with 62% (N=8) from Kgalagadi and 38% (N=5) from Gaborone (Table 4-14). The sample was comp rised of five females and eight males; the youngest participant was 24 years old, and the oldest wa s 78. It is important to note that names of the interviewees were changed into pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of the participants. Common themes generated via open coding were identified (Daly et al., 1992; Hatch, 2002). Further analysis was conducted us ing axial coding to examine the pattern of relationships that emerged from interrelated themes. The summary of key themes and sub-topics within each theme are presented in Table 4-15. Community ecotourism development This them e focused on the participants knowledge and views a bout community-based ecotourism development. Two major sub them es emerged: knowledge and appreciation of community-based ecotourism, and perceptions about community tourism. Knowledge and appreciation of community-based ecotourism: Almost all participants demonstrated a high level of familiarity with community-based ecotourism. The respondents associated community-based ecotourism to a form of tourism that deals with wildlife and cultural
158 heritage resources. Latife, who represented Mi nistry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism explained: Mm! Community-based ecotourism has to do with wildlife and cultural heritage tourism. We have our communities investing in cultural tourism; cultural villages, wildlife. Some communities have begun to venture into museum s. For example, Xai! Xai! Community a CBO in northern Botswana has started to develop campsites for tourists. Lopokole community in the Bobirwa does not have char ismatic animal species, but has a monument hill and rock paintings. We have assisted them to obtain land for their project. We are now working toward helping them with marketing th eir project. We encourage them to market their project. In Moremi village, the Moremi Gorge community project is in progress. The gorge is ecologically sensitive therefore we have engaged a consultant to carry out an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) for them before the community starts the project. Most the respondents viewed ecotourism as a form of tourism that promotes and encourages the use of existing local resources within communities. Wenzo who represented Community Extension and Outreach Unit noted: CBE is about cultural villages and other re lated activities like crafts, local foods, camping sites It is a form of tourism that deals with the use of resources that communities already have. In Kgalagadi communities have access to ostrich egg shells, which they obtain from ostrich farms and use in making handicrafts? They make items for use and sale M! necklaces, head band s, bracelets, floor mats, bags. The majority of the participants beli eved that CBE encourages involvement and participation of communities in tourism developmen t and that it is beneficial. Pineke, one of the village chiefs shared his views: Community-based ecotourism is important because it takes place in our village Within our environment. Mm! it involves everyone. In this way, it is a good form of tourism. It benefits all. Even the poor can participate and benefit. Similarly, an official from Department of Environmental Affairs, Fosante, expressed his viewpoint that CBE ensures involvement of local communities, and that usually residents are in the forefront of projects in their villages: Mm! can say that community-based ecotourism is an ecotourism enterprise that involves communities Ecotourism that is driven by local communities In a way, communitybased natural resources management (CBNRM) can be regarded as similar to ecotourism. I know that the principles of community-based tourism are si milar to those of community-
159 based natural resource management (CBNRM ). Community-based ecotourism and CBNRM both encourage promotion of sustainable use of resources and local participation in the management of natural resources. A Botswana Tourism Board offi cial Bushielo reiterated: M-m! Before the advent of ecotourism, local communities did not have much say in whatever tourism activities that was going on around them. They just saw foreigners arrive in their village and start taking pictures, buying some items from them. Really, it was haphazard, it was not organize d. It was only appreciated by some members of the community who were reaping benefits from it. Th ere were no benefits for all the people in the village. With ecotourism we [Pause], I co me to appreciate it more when I think of projects like Khwai and Sankuyo Trust [CBO] in the northern Botswana. You just see the whole community really benefiting, also actively involved. Sankuyu Trust (CBO) owns a lodge. They receive visitors Manage their lodge. There is an enhanced involvement of the community in tourism development and ma nagement. I have always been an ardent believer in pure [inaudible] mm! I believe in active community involvement in the hospitality sector such that when we have our long-haul tourists coming to Botswana So, ecotourism promotes active reside nts involvement in development. All but three of the representa tives expressed a high level of understanding of CBE as an activity that promotes conservati on of natural resources and is be neficial. Scubie who represented Qhaa Qhing CBO explained: CBE involves conservation of forest foods such as moretlwa, mahupu, motsotsojane, sengaparile. I know that we need to collect a nd gather these forest resources in a proper way. There is need to have permission to collect these resources as a way to control over collection of our forest foods. CBE encour ages conservation of our culture, dress songs and dances. Similarly, some of the participants indicated that CBE encourages sustainable and nondamaging use of resources. Letsadi who represented CBNRM Division noted that: CBE is about non-consumptive utilization of wild life resources photography, campsite. Perceptions about community ecotourism: All participants believed and emphasized the importance of establishment of community-based ecotourism enterprises or projects in their villages. Nearly all representa tives conversed verbosely abou t the potential for ecotourism advancement in the area. Participants often re ported availability of suitable resources for ecotourism development. According to Wendy, a Community-Based Organization representative:
160 There are some people in our village who are so talented, uh! They make handicrafts eh! Wood and bone carving, skin ta nning. They make skin mats and clothes. There are known traditional dancers and poets in Khawa. We have lots of wildlife. We have beautiful sand dunes that can be enjoyed by visitors to our villa ge. There is a variety of vegetation like, M! Forest foods like a! [ bo] Kgengwe (wild melons) of which people eat the melon fruit and fry the melon seeds and eat it as snack. Th ere is plenty of sengaparile (grapple plants), mokawa, which you can roas t and eat or sell. A similar perspective was expressed by one lo cal authority representatives, Tatiana: Yaa! I believe there is a great potential for ecotourism in our area. Our cultural traditions are unique, especially living tr aditions of the people of Stru izendam. The dance and music like Polka dance. There are lo ts of people with talents in th is village. Yee! We used to have a Karakul wool project al so a group of women used to make floor mats and other items from wool taken from sheep called karaku l. The project used to generate lots of revenue but, for individuals. I think that if the group could re-start the project, build a structure where they can work [pause] you know! Say by the road side could become a big business to generate revenue for the peopl e. We are a farming community [pause] we have sheep, goats, horses, donkeys, cattle. So, thos e tourists interested in farming or farm activities could stop by our villag e while visiting at KTP. A! There are sand dunes there are pit wells natural and historical that tourists and visitors can experi ence and appreciate in our area. If these resources are developed a nd promoted [pause] they have potential to attract tourists to our village. In addition, a Bokspits Village Developm ent Committee (VDC) member indicated the potential for ecotourism development. He said: I think there is a lot that can be exploited for ecotourism in this village. We have the beautiful sand dunes in our area. There is one un ique sand dune that ha s been identified as a tourist attraction because of its outstanding beauty. The comm unity with the help of VDC has already put fence around it to avoid it be ing damaged. Plans are under way to plant Hoodia8 (Gordonii cactus) plant inside the fenced area. Hoodia is a protected plant species and is unique. There is a lot of it in Kgal agadi. If taken care of and well marketed and tourists and visitors know a bout it, we could benefit. Many participants discussed about the ecotour ism wealth of the area with sentiments and connectedness to the Kgalagadi, including the di versity of desert wild animals and cultural anthropological resources which make the whol e Kalahari region unique. One of the village headmen, Pineke, averred: 8 Hoodia (Gordonii cactus) has been used for centuries by San/Basarwa people of the Kalahari Desert to stave off pain, hunger and thirst when they travelled during long hun ting trips for weeks, months and even years across the vast desert. Also used as food and medicine.
161 Eh! We have resources for ecotourism. [Pause] If we could build tourists campsites in our area we can build campsites ourselves [pau se] in a better way, like using local material, have water, traditional food. We can have our pe ople take charge of the campsites m! Like manage. See, we could have CBE enterprise that could generate so much revenue. Our people could have jobs and our village life m! I mean people could live better. Wild animals like herds of elands, springbok, gemsbok, Kalahari lions, leopards, hyena and different beautiful desert birds m! Like black-breasted snake eagle, kori bustard, ostrich many there for people to see Forest resources mm! W ild herbs and teas, and things like eh! Like wild foods like motsotsojane, mokwa, mahupu We also have meraka (ostrich egg shells) that we use to make handicrafts (head bands, earrings, belts, handbags) that we could sell to visitors and tourists and ge t cash and improve our lives. Nearly all participants were articulate in their conversation about the uniqueness of the Kgalagadi region as an ecotourism destination, poin ting to the availability of natural and cultural resources in their locality. Many of the interv iewees indicated that the area was a unique ecotourism destination where the aesthetic beauty and charm of the natural and cultural landscapes are entwined. Bushielo noted: I see a great potential there; th ere is unique culture of the San/Basarwa. This unique culture can enrich the general Botswana culture and increase the destination image of Kgalagadi A representative from th e Kgalagadi Land board affirmed that the area was endowed with resources inimitable for touris m advancement. He noted: I believe that Kgalagadi has a high potentia l for tourism, but it is lagging behind in development compared to northern Botswana. Othe r interesting things I mean resources for tourism are the Kgalagadi desert landscape; sand dunes, wild animals, parks, desert landscape there is more adventure. I believ e that the Kalahari Dese rt, I mean the Desert could be tapped for tourism development. In addition, the official in the Department of Environmental Affairs shared: You know! KTP portrays what the Kgalagadi has for tourism. Yes! I mean the wilderness qualities of KTP and the Kgalagadi region. You know Actually! This is what we should be marketing. However, this has not been exploited. The Botswana side of the Park portrays its [wilderness] as they have attempts to maintain wilderness quality M! There is potential of packaging KTP where you coul d combine wilderness and culture to capture and further exploit the socio-economic attributes of the Park. We had in the past attempted to establish a tourism project in Tshane. We wanted to set up a lodge to exploit tourism in that area. You know, we knew and believed that Tshane was a perfect area for such tourism business. In Ukhwi, we wanted to set up a l odge in Masetlheng. We, in fact, started a Joint venture partnership with a Safari opera tor who took over and se t up a campsite, and it is doing very well.
162 A similar view was echoed by Bushielo: The wilderness aspect of KTP is a selling point. The uniqueness makes KTP different from Botswanas northern parks. Um! Like the C hobe National Park and Okavango Delta. There is a whole contrast between northern parks a nd the southern ones. I like it because KTP offers a complete desert expe rience. You find magnificent desert features like salt pans. The area is more for tourists who are adventurous and want to have a rough experience. There you can find yourself lost in the complete wild erness. KTP region stands out as an opposite of our traditional tourism destinations. Many of the participants emphasized the unique ness and aesthetic beauty of the Kgalagadi region and noted that the government only promoted and marketed the Okavango Delta at the expense of southwestern Botswana. The se nior wildlife official, Mafie remarked: Tourism activity is greatest in northern Botswa na because focus has been in development of tourism there. Marketing by DOT and Governme nt has focused on north, and the south has been overlooked. This has led to increased tourism awareness among re sidents in the north than here. In the north, communities understand tourism, know tourists and identify with them But, I believe that the Kgalagadi region has high potentia l for community-based ecotourism development due to availability of varying ecotourism resources: sand dunes of different sizes, soil color, and shape; lands cape, desert features, sand dunes with rock outcrops; salt pans that are ri ch in wildlife, e.g. Masetlheng pan in Kgalagadi north. In KTP concentration of tourists is in Mabuasehube, Kaa (Qhaa!) a nd Two Rivers. There are other parks and reserves in the vicinity: Central Kg alagadi Game Reserve, Kutse game reserve, wilderness campsites with game and the general natural beauty. Knowledge about transfro ntier pro tected area This major theme revealed participants knowledge and perspectives of KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Emergent subthemes about th e Park included: significance and recognition, as well as collaboration and partnership issues. Respondents knowledge about KTP, particularly as it related to development within local communitie s was discussed equally by the majority of the participants. Significance and recognition: Nearly all the participants indicated having heard about the concept of Transfrontier Parks, especially KTP. Generally, participants we re aware that KTP had a dual ownership and control by the governments of Botswana and South Africa. Wenzo explained that: Transfrontier refers to management of two frontiers that are situated between two
163 international bodies it is about a Trans-boundary management and wildlife system. A few of the participants shared a brief history of the Pa rk. An official from the Wildlife Unit of DWNP explained: This park was established in 2000 when Gemsbok National Park in Botswana was adjoined to the South African Kalahari National Park to become TFP. Ee! During the colonial era, there was no demarcation between the two Parks. Look at this map. So, in 2000 thats when they started managing the Park (KTP) together. Thats why they call it a Transfrontier Park. It is now co-manage d. Before 2000, each governme nt had its own management plan. Since then, the management has become one. Benefits are shared between the two countries. Because management is one benefits, profits, development, and administration are shared by both countries. The majority of the participants indicated knowledge and awareness that there should be shared management and benefits between the two countries. According to Tatiana: I think that the idea of making it a joint pa rk was a good idea. Our park was much bigger than the South African, but the South African s had more developments on their side of Park, so most of the money from tourism was going to South Africa. Now it is our animals, our Park it was a good idea because now th e income from the Park is shared between the two countries equally. I think and be lieve it was a good thing because the two governments now share revenue generated from Park tourism unlike before. Similarly, Wendy, contended that: Residents awareness about the existence of KTP is high in my village. Khawa Kopanelo Developmen t Trust benefits so much from safari hunting because of KTP. However, Philo, who represen ted Kgalagadi Land board, further explained: At government level there is understanding of th e existence of KTP as a Transfrontier Park, but the local people seem a bit skeptical; hen ce the resident communities still need to be convinced further. Collaboration and partnerships issues: More than a dozen partic ipants indicated that Transfrontier Parks encourage and promot e collaboration. A CBO representative, Wendy, explained that: KTP has improved peace between Botswana and South Africans while, a Land Board official professed: I know that it (KTP) promotes cross boarder to urism benefits to both countries, and government interaction and coope ration has improved between South Africa and Botswana. A representative from National Parks Division explained:
164 Authorities from both countries share ideas, experience, knowledge, expertise. There is free migration of wild animals between the two countries; it is good for wildlife and conservation. Also, money accrued from tourism via gate fees is shared equally by both Botswana and South Africa. Also, collaboration about immigr ation matters was discussed by scores of the interviewees, because it was no longer a requirement to present a passport to visit either side of the Park. A representative from KTP said: Unlike before, [pause] there is free movement of people. We have border passport control based here at Two Rivers that handles immigration issues. It was intended to help with immigration needs for those who wish to travel outside South Africa via the Botswana immigration border gate or vice versa. On e person has been assigned duty as an immigration officer and now resides at the site. Scubie also added that: The Park is open to all people; as such ev eryone has access to the park for recreation and tourism. Both South Africans and Batswana9 can visit both sides of the park without using passports. Also, one of the local chiefs noted: The advantage is that if you enter the Park (KTP) you can either choose to go to the Botswana side or South African side [pause] there are no restrictions. Previously people were not allowed. Having this Park as a Tran sfrontier has m ade it ea sier for tourists. However, about a dozen participants expresse d concern about the ne ed for collaboration between the two governments in view of protection and management of the Park. Thus, nearly all of the participants expressed need for strengthened stakeholder collaboration and interrelationships in KTP management, especially with adjacent communities. Some participants discussed effective communication, information sharing and transparency in KTP-related activities, including tour ism advancement, creation and availability of jobs, and human-wildlife conflicts. Another villag e leader contended: 9 Botswana citizen
165 In most cases, the Park staff [pause] KTP ma nagement continues to implement the park plan without our knowledge. But, I believ e there is need however for KTP staff to update us on what is going on at this Park, part icularly the South Afri can side of the Park. We dont know. We need to know what problems or challenges they en counter so that we become aware of what is going on there. Nearly all the local representatives indicated a lack of information sharing between the South African National Parks (SANP), Botswanas De partment of Wildlife, and local residents. A tribal administration re presentative noted: Since the Park became a Transfrontier, we dont benefit from it at all. There is lack of communication between the Park management, gove rnment and the residents. Also, there is no program or forum through which we could have discussions with the Park Authority and both governments Greta, who represented Farmers A ssociation CBO, also added that: The South Africans [pause] or Park Authority do not consult with us (residents) as to what they are doing in the Park. But as I say before we used to have combined meetings. But now they have stopped. We now have no forum to discuss these things. We have not been given that opportunity. In the very first m eeting, the South African and Namibians were there when we discussed the Park. We also discussed about the issues of compensating adjacent communities in case they experience property damage from wildlife. But since then we have never had any meeting with the Park Management to discuss the issues about KTP. Management issues Management of KTP as a Transfrontier Pa rk and the general tourism development of Kgalagadi were discussed under this theme. Three subthemes or issues were identified: policy and co-management, human-wildlife conflicts, and land ownership and control. A key contextual issue was the need for Park authorities to adhere to Transfrontier Park policy, as well as to ensure equal representation and involvement in all Park activities by local resident s from both countries. Policy and co-management challenges: Under this sub-theme, respondents personal perspectives and experiences with regards to KT P were identified. A substantial number of the participants noted inflexible regulations and policy-related issues about KTP. Greta, a representative of the Farm ers Association, contended:
166 South African Park Board is controlling the Bo tswana side of the Park as well. We know that the Park has to be managed by both South Africa and Botswana Board of governors. This is a bad attitude. South Africa is too controlling. Mm! At one time, we were not even allowed to attend a funeral of our co lleague [silence] a friend and a relative. The burial took place right here at the Park. We were only allowed to stand outside I mean by the Park fence. Wendy aired similar sentiments: There are restrictions on our m ovement in the area, and eh! I mean restrictions to use our dogs when searching for our domestic animals. In KD 15, we are not allowed to use horses when herding our livestock because this is associated with illegal hunting of wild animals. Um! Restrictions on our movement in and around our village are too harsh. We are not allowed to search for livestock riding on our horses or donkeys. We are not allowed to go around our village looking for our domestic animals when accompanied by our dogs. This restricts peoples life to their traditiona l life of hunting and gath ering. This has to change. It is not good for people in my commun ity. We are not happy with this. Dogs help us. There might be a dangerous animal out th ere! You know. It could kill you Your goats could be eaten. I dont know, but somethi ng needs to be done to help the situation. In a similar vein, a tribal ad ministration official declared: Most of the time people are accused of killing wild animals even if they are just out in the bush collecting fire wood or forest foods. We dont have freedom to move around our area The Park was created for pr otection of natural resources Mm! Wildlife [inaudible] in order to improve our standard of living, but now this goal is not fulfilled. Also, Pineke added: I oppose this idea of KTP as Transfrontier a nd shared management because it is South Africa thats only benefiting from this park and Botswana is doing nothing about this situation. Our animals have moved to their side of the Park because they built many boreholes. This is hurting. I am totally against this Tran sfrontier thing. About half of the representatives expressed their mixed feelings about management of KTP and the associated benefits that accrue to the lo cal people. An official from the Customary Court, Tatiana, contended: KTP mm! At the beginning (in 2000) they had a stakeholder meeting where we discussed issues of adjoining the Park. Now, they ha ve stopped calling meeti ngs, so we dont know what is happening with this Park. Mm! I know that this Park has a shared management mandate, but when there are jobs at the Park, they only offer them to South Africans. This is an unfair treatment on our part because they re quire our people to obtain work permits if they are to work there something that was never a requirement before the Park became a Transfrontier. I am not happy about this. Unempl oyment is too high in our village. you
167 see right now there are construction activities going on at the Park (KTP), where they are building of an office block and the main en trance gate, but only the South Africans are engaged. Additionally, Moagi shar ed his thoughts: I feel that we are not fairly tr eated Um! Since this Park was turned into a Transfrontier all water holes (wells and boreholes) that our forefathers owned [inside KTP] M! And were closed. Yet! More boreholes on the South African side of the Park were drilled and improved to attract wildlife from our side of Pa rk so that many tourists could go there. They are stealing our animals. Our side of the KT P is big, has more animals. They take our animals and benefit. If the Government can dig boreholes say about 20-30km on the Botswana side of the Park, then wild animals c ould be attracted to our side of the Park as well. More animals mean increased tour ism and job creation for our people. The majority of the participants discusse d the imperfection and weakness of the KTP management system. Fosante contended: I believe that we have failed to establish or come up with a management plan that was implementable. [Pause] as regards to KTP, we have the management plan in place, but the plan was never implemented. So, Im inclined to believe that there is lack of capacity on the implementers. Also, I think the political will is lacking. Natural resources management is like new, so we are still struggling to lear n about natural resource management. Eh! Maybe we could separate our Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) from government and privatize it or M-m! Make it a Parastatal mm! Just like in South Africa, you know! I mean the South African National Parks (SANP). A few of the participants e xpressed concerns of current KTP management. As Latife, one of the National representatives, noted: The government should create a co-managem ent program that will enable government [pause] local communities to work together in managing the resources of KTP. A good example would be a situation where local co mmunities own campsites inside a Park. Something similar to what they do at Kruger National Park in South Africa. For the KTP local communities are not involved [pause] not be nefiting. So, I believe that it is time for us as government to work with these communitie s. There is need to provide capacity for communities residing on the boundary of Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. Within Government, I believe that we need strong leadership and people who understand policies and can guide local people as needed. Many of the participants e xpressed their opinions about the KTP and co-management practices. They noted some positive outcomes that were consequential of KTP as a Transfrontier protected area. A representative of the Tebelope le Development Trust (CBO), Scubie, explained:
168 Yes! Wildlife department takes care of our wild animals. Ther e is no [boundary] fence, but there is a proper management and control of wild animals inside the Park. The Park authority provides water for animals. There are waterholes for animals. We wish to see no one killing these animals because they are ve ry valuable and important to us. Fosante shared a similar outlook: Since the Park became a Transfrontier, the management has become one. Benefits are shared between the two countries. Because ma nagement is one benefits, profits, development, and administration [Pause]. All are shared by both countries. It is a good idea because the park is big. A large area is covered covering different habitats, different types of resources. You know th ere is free movement of animals and there is free movement of people within KTP. You know! [Pause ] TFPs are sponsored by conservation organizations these organizations provide funding Yea! [Pause] reducing the cost of management. If Botswana was managing the park all alone it was going to be pricy. Benefits are shared equally and some are used towards the management of the Park. Revenue generated by the KTP goes b ack into conservation projects. In addition, Wenzo, who represented local Commun ity Extension and Outreach Unit, noted: Uh! We learn a lot from them. We benefit fr om their administration. South Africa is well equipped, um! Equipment, material, training, te chnical know how Some of our people who work at the Park (KTP) have benefited through educational traini ng. Wildlife staff at the Park has been trained at the South African Wildlife College. Philo further asserted: I like the idea of co-management. Now, Bots wana and South African Wildlife Departments work together towards transloca tion of wild animals in the pa rk. Also, if KTP was not managed by both governments, ma ybe our people would not be involved. So, this is a good thing joint management of our natural resources is a good thing. Some of the interviewees indica ted the urgent need for a review of the current management plan of KTP. Greta elucidated: [Sighs] that it is high time we have Board of governors with representatives from Botswana and South Africa so that we can deal with thes e issues and make them fair. At the moment, the Board of Governors is one sided. But, there is an urgent need to have representatives from both countries. Um! Now, I can see that the South African laws and polices are the only ones used to manage this Park. Yet it is a Transfrontier [pause] it is shared by Botswana and South Africa. Also, a national representative reasoned that : Developments at KTP and Kgalagadi have been very slow. I wish, as a country or department, we could move fast er to implement the tourism plan such as putting up some
169 tourism structures on the Botswana side of KT P. South Africans are faster in implementing plans, so once the two governments have agreed to do so. Human-wildlife interactions: In terms of human-wildlife conflicts, some of the interviewees indicated that they were appreh ensive of the KTP management plan and its implementation with regard to natural resour ce utilization. A substant ial number of them expressed concern about the unmerited treatmen t of residents by the Park management with respect to wildlife and cons ervation practices at KTP. Greta contended: [Sighs] In Botswana, we have the right to shoo t one lion if it attacks our livestock. But, in South Africa, they dont allow people to shoot lions even if they attack, kill and eat livestock. I recall that some time ago 18 cattle fr om our village jumped into the Park (KTP). All 18 cattle were attacked and killed by lions, but none of those lions was killed due to the strict conservation policies of S outh Africa. Because of this, I believe that it is high time we have a Board of governors with representatives from Botswana and South Africa so that we can deal with these issues and make them fair At the moment, the Board of Governors are one sided. But, there is an urgent need to have representatives from both countries. A handful of the local representatives expr essed similar views about human-wildlife issues in their area. Several others indicated that they were not contented with the lack of clear-cut regulations dealing with huma n-wildlife challenges in the community. An official who represented tribal administration explained: Mm! As a community living closer to this Pa rk (KTP) we have problems of wild animals killing and eating our livestock. We are aware that the Park fence was constructed to control domestic animals from entering the Park, and wild animals from escaping into our villages and farm areas. But, you know some areas of th e Park are not fenced. The existing fence is not well maintained. So, animals do escape from the Park and kill our livestock and devour them. The regulation was that if domestic anim als enter the Park, they should be killed, but farmers are not happy about this. We are not happy when our animals get killed. In the Botswana side of the Park, here in Kgalagadi we dont have problems with foot and mouth. I believe that the South African Park authoriti es should not kill our livestock. There is need to review this regulation or policy because farmers are not happy. I I feel that there is a need for an alternative option than to ki ll our livestock when they are found inside Park boundary. Further, another village headman retorted:
170 When predators escape into our village, ya! On our farms, and we report the matter to the authority, it always takes too long to get assisted. The Probl em Animal Unit is based in Tsabong. We have suggested this to the wildlife office in Ts abong that we should have one or two officers in the village so that if there is a predator problem it will be quick to deal with the matter. The use of teaser gun for predators is also a concern. We were told that teaser guns can only be done by a doctor eh! Th e specialist! Whenever there is a problem and the doctor is not there we encounter serious problems. So, if the government could train more people to use a teas er gun on predators, this could reduce the challenges we face at the moment. Our South African counterparts ha ve been using teaser guns for a long time; they are not new to them. Hence, thats the reason why they dont experience similar problems. Just think of our livestock, cattle, donkeys [pause] about 26 of them were killed by predators from KTP last year (2007). Land ownership and control: Land ownership issues were discussed by a substantial number of representatives, who indicated that land was a majo r cause of conflicts between communities and the Park authority, especially for villages with cattle posts and farms that are very close to the Park. A dozen respondents expressed their vi ews about the buffer zone or Wildlife Management areas (WMA) surrounding the Pa rk. They articulated their dissatisfaction about land ownership and control of WMAs. Many of them indicated that the areas of land outside of KTP rightly belong to the community, but averred that government has full control of the land designated as WMA. Latife asserted: A! Parks in Botswana! We still like this idea of Parks and People. People tend to live very close to Park boundaries, yet, they might not be permitted entry to collect or perform some traditional livelihood activities in these Pa rks. Most of the Parks in Botswana are not executing this. The Parks, our parks sit there like diamonds. Another village leader al so added his viewpoint: KTP has taken land from us because our forefa thers were staying there; then they were forced out there by Afrikaners we could still be benefiting from our land, and the wells are still there which were built by our forefath ers. Weve already asked the government to give back to us a portion of KTP land for agriculture. Similarly, an official from Kgalagadi Land Board, Philo, added: The Park is surrounded by WMAs this is a region between KTP and communal land. Also, WMAs are known as wildlife migratory routes. WMAs have been reserved primarily as wildlife migratory routes, but, the communities of Kgalagadi view the area as a threat because it has taken much of their grazing land, cattle post, I mean farmland. Initially,
171 WMAs were designated for wildlife management area only. Other wildlife related activities such as game ranches or farms were not allocat ed in WMAs. In Kgalagadi District alone WMAs cover 39% of the Tribal land or communal areas. So, I feel that this is too high Mm! a way too much. Ha! There is need to incr ease communal land for residents than have so much land designated as WMAs. Local peopl e should be allowed to have some business developments within KTP and WMAs. In addition, some of the part icipants conversed about unc oordinated Park management practices and land use activ ities in and around KTP, and noted th at designation of land as WMAs and KTP as a Transfrontier Park has become a contentious issue within local communities. An official from a local CBO retorted: You know! The area where WMAs are is trib al land. I dont have a problem with KTP, but I dont like the idea of a WMA. We, as people of have rights to ownership of our resources. [Pause] I was the chairman of th e Land Board when Wildlife Management Areas were created and demarcated. I never agreed to the idea of their formation nor supported the idea to have them in the first place. I know th at these WMAs [pause] are in tribal land. Staff from the Park come to the village to harass people. They harass people in Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) I mean the Buffer zone. [Pause] Thats why I dont support the creation of WMAs because th ese WMAs are in tribal land. People have the right to their tribal land. Some participants indicated that they did not have problems with wild animals because their villages were relatively far from the Park (KTP). However, a substantial number of interviewees mentioned that they were aware that predators (li ons, cheetahs, leopards) fr om the Park attack and kill farmers livestock. Interviewees indicated th at humanwildlife conflicts were prevalent in farm areas and cattleposts that were in close proximity to KTP. An official from the Tribal authority remarked: Animals dont cause trouble in our village, we are far from there, but they attack and kill livestock in farms near the Park in areas around Khawa and Middlepits villages, communities have reported cases of predators killing livestock. Now, Middlepits community wants the livestock grazing land to be extended, but Khawa people are against the idea because they benefit from safari hunting through their CBO. This dispute over tribal land has been reported to the Kgalag adi Land Board, but Im not sure what will happen.
172 Some participants indicated that some comm unities desired to have WMA land reduced to give way for agriculture. Other communities that have been favored by wildlife-tourism business did not support the idea. One of the village leaders noted: I am aware that the Department of Lands, Wildlife and National Parks Office and th e Kgalagadi South Technical committee are working on the issue. But, it is important to not e that a few of the representatives wanted WMA land reduced. Greta also explained this need: My opinion regarding this issue of WMA and Tribal land is th at something has to be done [pause] the policy should be reviewed such th at the size of WMAs is reduced to give way for some activities that are permitted in co mmunal area like farming. Ecotourism is ok, but should take place in WMAs. Development challenges All the participants emphasized concerns about the one-sided tourism development between the South African side of KTP and Bots wana. The two major subthemes discussed were: infrastructure for tourism and cultural-heritage tourism issues. Infrastructure for tourism: Nearly all the representatives talked elaborately about the importance of tourism development in their dist ricts, and the need for associated support infrastructure. One of the village headmen noted: As for the developments [pause] I think that we need to have more developments like um! Lets say tourist facilities like motels, lodges, rest camps and so on so that we also get more income from tourists from the Botswana side of the Park. I was told that as for accommodation fees, food stuff and so on all go to South Africa, and it is only entry or gate fees that both countrie s share. I think on the Bots wana side we need more developments [pause] shops. Youth dont have jobs. More developments will mean more job creation for the people. Letsadi, who represented the CBNRM Unit, added: The changes Id like to see, would like the government [pause] the government should allow tourism investments in the Park to let people build facilitie s like lodges similar to those in the South African side of the park. This could be a way to provide employment for local communities and services for tourists and visitors.
173 Almost all the participants expressed their as pirations to have more developments provided both inside and outside the Park, and noted th at communities would appreciate tourism and benefit from it. An official from the Botswana Tourism Board contended: Well-sealed roads and airstrips are needed if tourism is to grow in the area. Tour operators could bring more tourists to the Kgalagadi area if there were better roads an d other amenities and services for tourists. An official from a CBO explained that: At the Botswana side of the KTP there are no telephone facilities. People in the nearby villages and settlements have to use S outh African VODACOM and MNET Cellular Phone Companies. Like now, when a tourist come, th ey prefer coming to enjoy nature at the Botswana side of the Park, but would go to S outh African side for ot her things like lodging, food, souvenirs, fuel. Even us Batswana when we visit the park we use lodging facilities available on the South African side. A few of the representatives ta lked about access road systems in the area, indicating that dirt roads, paths and treks that connect villages were not in good state. They were sandy, full of potholes and deterrence to tourists and investors. Almost all participants expressed dissatisfaction about the level of development that exists inside KTP. Wendy shared her standpoint: On the South Africa side of the Park there ar e tourism developments, but the Botswana side Park is all natural. So, Batswana should be given the opportunity to have tourism businesses inside the Park as well. Throughout my stay in this area, I have observed that tourists tour and enjoy the Botswana side of KTP. Yet th ey would have accommodation (fully serviced cabins, lodges) in the South African side of the Park because they have better visitor facilities. At the Botswana side th ere are only campsites with ablutions. In addition, Mafie, one of the national representatives, noted: Like I said before, there are no tourism facilities on the Botswana side of the Park. We need to speed up development at this Park so that we can sell and benefit. Mm! 2010 is approaching mm! The South Africans are busy ma rketing KTP (Park) as a way to be ready for the World Cup. So, it is expected that th ere might be some people who would want to come to Botswana, and visit KTP to experien ce the wilderness, and would like to come to Botswana. We need tourists facilities and se rvices because you cannot cash from tourism if you do not have facilities. If we dont have facilities we may lose out. A VDC representative, Moagi, shared his views:
174 If only our government could erect a fen ce along the internati onal boundary of KTP it would be helpful. They should put up a fence all the way to Unions End (part of the Park boundary) then we could be sure that the Pa rk belongs to us (Botswana). Government should drill boreholes on the Botswana side which we could utilize for tourism; just like in South Africa This could benefit us due to job creation because more tourists will come. Some participants made reference to the idea ls or changes that government should make in order for local people to benefit. Many expresse d their concerns about the sluggish development or negligence on the part of the Botswana govern ment with respect to basic tourism facilities. Letsadi asserted: We need to improve infrastructure at KTP. One of the major disinc entives of the private sector in participating in t ourism at KTP is lack of suppor ting physical infrastructure. I believe that the government has to ensure th at facilities are provide d. If tourism related facilities and services are in place, investors will be attracted, and tourists will come in large numbers. This is a management issue that fo r now poses a challenge to the government and for tourism growth at KTP. The South African side of the Park seems to be managed better for tourism. We have not developed this area to standards required by different visitors. The majority of the representatives discusse d about the need for t ourism development at KTP, but they did not indicate what type of tour ism and what level of development they wanted. Another CBO representative said: I suggest that government shoul d provide developments to our area of the Park so that people woul d stop illegal hunting of wildlife. Only one respondent expressed concern about the negative im pact of tourism development, by hinting that creation of too many tr ails inside KTP could a ffect or pose a threat to the Park landscape. Fosante explained: More tr ails have been created inside the Park, but I believe that too many trails mi ght jeopardize the wilderness quality of KTP. Cultural-heritage for tourism development: With regards to the type of tourism development suitable for Kgalagadi, many of the participants believed that cultural heritage tourism was a niche for the area. Almost all of th e interviewees deemed that resources for cultural heritage tourism existed and that there was need to exploit these resources to promote the tourism industry. A representative from the Kgalagadi District Council noted:
175 We have natural and unique caves in our ar ea that are not yet thought of as something important for tourism. The caves [pause] very large ones are in Tshane, larger than the ones in Kang. These caves are unique and beau tiful. Inside these caves there is letsoku, traditional green paint. Already people in the village use the cave site for taking wedding photos. To attract tourists I thi nk a traditional house could be built there These kinds of caves are found in Tshane a nd Hukuntsi. People could make crafts and display them there so that when tourists co me, they could see the caves, see our culture through craft and even buy. Caves could be used fo r tourism, but they are not utilized at the moment. There are pans, which also hol d water during rainy season and attract many wild animals and beautiful birds of Kgalagadi. Lodges or any other t ourist enterprise could be built near the pans; people could pay to ta ke pictures and show to their friends at overseas. The numbers of tourists coming to stay in our village have increased. Before the lodge was built they used to drive past the village going to Zutshwa. Additionally, an officer who re presented a local CBO noted: As well as using wildlife as a tourism product I think people should try other resources, like traditional foods You know, when it rains, beautiful and unique grass sprouts all over the district, and we could take advantage of th is by starting a community project like that of the Ba-Swati of Swaziland. Some of the types of grasse s found in my district are similar to those found in Swaziland. Our people could use th is type of grass to produce crafts and attract tourists like in Swazila nd. There are important plant sp ecies here in Kgalagadi for example, mositsana plant This plant is unique to Kgagaladi and it is very important to local people. It is used in leather tanning to give a skin mat an ap pealing and nice color. Therefore it is important that it is protected and for tourism. They (tourists) could also try our traditional cuisine M! legodu (mix of melon and beans), Bogobe jwa lerotse (melon porridge). This year the rains were so good so we have lots of melons. People are selling melon seeds as snack in the streets. One of the village headmen added his view that: We have sites of tourists interest like. Um! There is a natural pit well on the Logaganeng Hill [pause] this well does not dry up. We have identified the site and indicated its potential for tourism. Right now we are wo rking on a report about how we could protect and conserve it. We are planning to submit the report to the Department of Tourism. Other sites of tourist interest include Boks pit well in Bokspits M! a 3000m deep well with rich local history and memories. There are many other sites all over Kgalagadi, in Kolonkwaneng Bogogobo natural caves and many other historical sites especially inside KTP. Our forefathers used to live there [pause] there are still some structures there remains of houses, boreholes and others. In addition, a national repres entative explained that: As government, we need to exploit other resour ces for CBE that are available in Kgalagadi, not just wildlife. There are plenty of them M! The Kgalagadi culture (language, music, dance, history and heritage) and sand dunes. Th ere are people who woul d like to go there to see these features. And we can develop Kgalagad i in such a way that it becomes more like
176 the Delta. There are people who visit Bots wana but would not want to see water of Okavango Delta. They can come and see Kgalag adi [pause] our beautiful Desert. We need to explore our culture. We need to sell the cu lture. We need to devel op circuit tourism. You know we could combine this into one big to ur [pause] starting from the north (Okavango region) to southwestern (Kalahar i), incorporating villages, and th en end the tour here at the city (Gaborone). According to one of the local CBOs: I believe there is a lot we can offer as cultura l tourism in this village. We are a farming community, we have karakul sheep. We have our unique folk dances. We have historic buildings around here which have unique stories about how people settle d in this area. The community through VDC has identified a site; it is pit well called B oks pit well (from which our village was named after). It is the firs t pit well to be built in the area when people moved here and had no water. We have alrea dy contacted the Depart ment of Museum to help protect and develop it as a cultural attraction. Special fo rest resources that are unique to our region are plentiful eh! Like mahupu, sengaparile, mokala. Community integration This them e established interviewees views and opinions about KTP and adjacent communities. Subthemes discussed include KTP benefits to local communities and residents involvement/participatio n in KTP activities. Park benefits to local communities: A few of the participants mentioned that KTP generates benefits. They indicate d that the Park has benefited local people by controlling illegal hunting. Mafie pointed out: Transfrontier Parks are ve ry important are essential because this park KTP has helped us a lot in reducing poaching in this ar ea. Wenzo noted: South Africa has been of great help to us by assisting us on how to take charge of problem animals. South Africans are so advanced, so as a department we have ga ined a lot of experience and support this Park [pause] as a Transfrontier. Similarly, Pineke also noted this benefit: I dont believe that the community benefit from the Transfrontier Park. In fact, I know that there are no benefits for the people. Mm! maybe benefits are that we have our Wildlife Department taking care of the Park. This is bene ficial to all of us because poaching (illegal hunting) is very high in this ar ea. M-m! If we did not have th e Department of Wildlife staff helping, poaching was going to increase; animals would all disappear. The Department of
177 Wildlife helps the community [pause] helps us with our livestock, a! Otherwise our livestock could be killed and eaten by predator s (lions, leopards, wild dogs). At Swart pan a lot of our livestock (cattle, horses, goats, and donkeys), 26 of them, were killed by lions which escaped from KTP into our cattle post (farm areas). Similarly, a representative from CBO explained: They help us with problem animals like lions. Whenever they escape from the Park (KTP) and come to into our village and cattle posts (farm), the animals kill and devour our livestock (cattle, donkeys, goats, horses). [Pause ] They (KTP authority) hire casual laborers from our village to work at the Park The Park management helps us because when the fence is broken and needs to be fixed, they send staff to our village to recruit and hire some members of the community. This helps us by stopping predators from escaping into our village to kill and eat our livestock. Also, a handful of the interviewees expr essed their satisfaction with KTP. Scubie noted: During hunting season the residents of Zutshwa obtain lots of benefits like meat, income and part-time jobs. We dont have to go to Gaborone (the capital city) to look for jobs. A local CBO representative stated: Ah! Benefits from the Park as a Trust [CBO] we get advice from the Park management on how we can develop our tourists trail. Our children learn about the Park [pause] when they visit a campsite inside the Park. The Pa rk (KTP) has created jobs for residents. KTP has created jobs for us local people. The Pa rk protects and conserve s our natural resource diphologolo (wild animals). As a Trust (CBO) we often visit the Park (KTP) management to seek advice about how to develop and manage our Trust. Ah! I can say that KTP acts as an education centre for our Trust. Fosante had the same outlook about KTP: School children from our distri ct benefit from KTP. Students come to this Park for tours and learn about wildlife conservation and th e natural resource management. Residents might not be benefiting from tourism because of low education/awareness of tourism. Residents focus more on livestock than tourism. They put valu e on livestock than tourism. Additionally, Wenzo contended: [Silence] the creation of awaren ess regarding the Transfrontier Park. We have been holding meetings with communities. People have shown understanding about the Park. There is free movement of wild animals within the park. Re sidents have begun to gain benefits from the Park. Mm! There is free movement of people within the South Africa and Botswana side of the Park. Local people no longer need to show passports whenever they want to tour both sides of the Park. People from Botswana are free to go shopping at the South African
178 side of the Park. Also, capturing of predators that escape from the park has been successful because of the assistance we get from co-management of KTP with South Africa. Tatiana, who represented a Tr ibal Administration, added: The advantage about KTP right now, mm We can enter the Park freely; there are no restrictions of movement between the two countries. [pau se] Now you can go inside the Park without having to show your passports uh! The signing of the Park for dual ownership by the two governments has made th ings easier for local people, tourists and visitors. However, a substantial number of the particip ants noted that, while KTP was created with a goal to benefit adjacent communities, the people we re getting only a little in return. Some of the major concerns about KTP and tourism were that the local communities did not benefit directly from the Park, as Safari hunting enterprises ar e owned by outsiders and local people work as laborers. One of the village chiefs expressed his opinion: There are no benefits that we get from KTP. We are aware that gate fees from KTP belong to the government. But, some members of the co mmunity have part time jobs at the Park they get, like three to six months part tim e jobs, sometimes fixing the Park fence. In the past, [Pause] before the Park became a Transf rontier many people from my village worked at the Park. Now, Batswana (citizens) are not employed as many as they used to be. .See many young people dont have jobs. We see many of South Africans working at the Park. Mm! Right now there is a construction work going on at the Par k. There is a problem with construction of the Park main entrance ga te and offices. I was told that this was going to be a joint project between South Africa and Botswana people [pause] so that all would benefit equally. But, I was in shock to learn that the construction work has started and none of the people from the village is involved or hired. I mean none of the people from our village. So many people here are depended on namola leuba10. Moagi shared a similar opinion: Mm! [sad] totally nothing! The only benefits I can speak of are when KTP staff come to recruit some individuals from the village and offer them menial jobs. Some people get hired temporarily to repair the Park fence whenever th ere is need. This is seasonal, like three to six months. I wish the Park management could employ members of the Struizendam community to work on permanent basis [pause] at the Park so that they could benefit. I have discussed the employment issu e with the manager of KTP on the Botswana side of KTP but, in vain. You see we live close to th e Park, but we are not employed there. People want to work at the Park. These people dont have jobs. Those who went there in 10 Local Government Drought Relief projects one of State Welfare programs (see NDP 9, 2003)
179 search of jobs have been sent back and were told that Batswana are not going to be hired. I feel that jobs should be create d at KTP. More jobs are needed for our community, especially residents who live in villages close to the Park. More developments are needed on the Botswana side of the Park. Some representatives felt that tourism in the area has benefited only certain individuals. Moagi noted: Park benefits to communities are not much, but only individuals who can afford. Also, Letsadi explained: People in my village and most people in Kgal agadi South have not benefited much from tourism. Only a few individuals who own t ourism-related business such as accommodation, petrol filling (gasoline) stations. However, it is hopeful that the newly developed community-based camel ranch project will help people here once it star ts to operate. Those who already understood tourism and have the knowledge about the bus iness benefit more than individuals whose knowledge of tourism is very low. Similarly, Philo added: There is low tourism awareness within communi ties; therefore tourism benefits just few individuals in the villages. So, education is important for us to be able to assess whether tourism is important and essential to us or not. Very few people in my village benefit from tourism. Education awareness is needed especi ally for community-based projects as there have been incidences of misappropriation of funds for these projects. Mafie, who represented National Parks Unit, indicated that: KTP has not played a significant ro le in helping with the growth of tourism in this district as there is a lack of tourism development on th e Botswana side. I would like to see more developments since lack of investment hamper s benefits that could be accruing for people in this area. Local involvement and participation: The majority of the interviewees indicated that local residents were not involved in the management activities of the Park (KTP). Scubie retorted: The management of KTP is done by our govern ment alone. We, the people living closer to the park are not involved. I believe it would be helpful if the government via the Department of Wildlife and National Parks could involve the local people in the day-to-day operation of the Park. Mm! I feel you know! We want to be part of the anti poaching unit so that we could assist th e government. It should not just be the Department of Wildlife and National Parks that does everything. We live here, close to KTP Um! Just 73km. Wildlife office is in Tsabong. Many people from Zutshwa should be involved to help curb illegal hunting. A similar response was added by Moagi:
180 KTP management does not inform us, not even through the media or any type of reports to let us know how the Park is progressing. We don t know what is going on? We are just in the dark. What is the management doing for th e people? The Park does not benefit us? Wild animals from the Park could benefit us. We could be informed to know of how many people from KTP are employed; how much money the Park generates. If you ask me how much money KTP is making, I would tell you that I dont know. Also, Tatiana noted: The people are not involved in the management of the Park. It is the responsibility of the two governments. Before, many of the people fro m my village were involved. They worked there. But, after the government took over a nd started managing KTP with South Africa, South Africa government does not allow Batswana (citizens) to work on the South African side of the Park. In addition, a significant number of the inte rviewees indicated the need for changes, emphasizing that Park authoritie s or management should ensure that adjacent communities are recognized and involved. An official who represented Tr ibal authority affirmed: We have asked the government to let us have one member of the community to sit in the Park Board. To represent the community us in the Pa rk Board so that we can have an idea of what is going on at KTP Repres entation in the Park Board, so that we could have our views taken into consideration in planning To make communication better between the community and the Pa rk better so that people could be represented! [pause] So that they have [silence] Um! They could present their prob lems and discuss. Uh! I believe there is need, however, for the KTP staff to update and inform us about what is going at this Park, particularly the South African side of the Park. We dont know. We need to know what problems or challenges they encoun ter so that we become aware with what is going on there. An official from Tribal Administration also noted: We need to have someone from the community as a representative on the Park board. I dont know if Park Board exists, but I think it would be a good thing to have one person from our village representing us as a commun ity. Need to have someone to represent the community on that board so that we can get information also we can have better communication between the community and the Park management or park authority. That is one of the things I believe would be good to do. So that if there is a problem this could be communicated to us. A village headman, Pineke, added that: I only visited KTP once. I visited at the time wh en this Park was signed into a Transfrontier protected area in 2000. So, I cannot pinpoint to the bad and good about KTP. But, I have an interest to visit. I also believe that if chie fs and headmen were assi sted with transportation
181 to visit they could benefit from knowing about the resources in th e Park. Many people who visit our villages always ask us about whats in the Park, but we dont know. The issue of community empowerment was expr essed by some of the interviewees. They alluded to community empowerment via active participation and capacity building. Fosante said: To me the long term solution is to build capac ity not just through workshops, but via formal proper training, starting by identifying peopl e within these communities. Bushielo expressed a similar sentiment: I believe is all about community empowerm ent. [Long silence] Actually community empowerment is one of the key points that are being emphasized by the Botswana National Ecotourism strategy. It is through community involvement in tourism that is more likely to instill a sense of ownership. Involving local peop le in tourism is likely to make residents more inclined to preserve tourism products [r esources] [pause] the entire environment and the wild animals that thrive on it. If resident s can see themselves benefiting directly from tourism they will be more inclined to care and manage these resources better: In other words, they should not view tourism as foreign to their region or vill ages. When there is a perception of tourism as an alien industry, benefiting only foreigners, then local people would have no motivation or in centive to try and preserve th eir resources. [Pause] The resources, so Im saying yes, we should tr y by all means to promote community tourism projects so that they (resident s) can too become players in the development of the tourism industry. Latife also avowed: I believe that KTP will open opportunities for local communities to sell their crafts. So, I believe that a strategy should be put in place wh ether small shops are built inside the park where people could be allowed to come and deliv er their [produce] items for sale and then they can be charged a certain percentage for Park management. This could be an incentive for people to engage in craft making as a livelihood activity. Almost all local respondents shared similar vi ews that residents have not been given the opportunity to participate or be involved in job-rela ted meetings about KTP. Great explained: We live close to the Park but we are not involved in any activities taking place at KTP. People are interested in this Park. People want to work at the Park. If the current management and the on-going activities at KT P are looked into, and addressed fairly, I believe everyone would appreciate. Only Sout h Africans are involved in the construction work. People want to identify with KTP and benefit from it, but we dont know what is
182 going on there. Some members of my communit y, were forced out of the Park, but were never compensated [see this letter]. Wenzo opined that: But I wish the government of Botswana could perhaps match the standards of operation of our side of the Park to that of South Afri ca. Mm! right now the Park entrance gate and office block construction work is going on, but only South Africans are involved. No involvement of people from Botswana. Yet, when meetings are held in South Africa, representatives from DWNP (Botswana) are invited. But ordinary members from the community are not invited to these meetings. Al so, there is a mismatch of the management system as it is State (Botswana) vi s--vis Parastatal (South Africa). Awareness of CBNRM and Conservation Interv iewees were also asked a single close-ended question: Is CBNRM the right approach for wildlife conservation? Eleven out of all inte rviewees answered yes while only one said dont know. All the interviewees except one repor ted that the approach was a robust program for conservation. In particular, respondents indicated that they heard about the program when it was introduced in their districts and that the program was useful. One village leader noted: when it started I was very happy to learn about it. Corjan Van der Jagt helped us to know about CBNRM. Almost all participants believed that CBNRM was a good approach for wildlife conservation. Many discussed benefits that communities have accrued from the program, especially in communities with CBOs. Phil o, who represented the Kgalagadi Land Board explained: Through CBNRM we can regulate mana gement and use of natural resources. An official from a CBO also added: With CBNRM there is reduced poaching within communities. Poaching has become very low in Khawa vill age. A representative from a CBNRM Unit, Letsadi, asserted: Oh! Communities are encouraged to manage their own resources (wildlife) and other natural resources available in their areas. In the past, communities used to manage their resources, but when the government took over, poaching increased. This was the time when the government centralized ev erything. Control and manage ment was with the central office, but then communities poached more. They hated to see us (wildlife officers). With CBNRM, we now relate very well with communities Now communities seem to
183 understand the benefits of conservation. They help us in monitoring and taking care of wildlife resources because they get benefits. Pineke from the Tribal Admini stration added a similar view: Yes, conservation knowledge. Um! CBNRM pr ograms have helped the community to understand the importance of cons ervation of our natural resour ces. The program has helped us to know how to manage our w ildlife resources; how to [ train wildlife ] to be closer to our area we have gained the knowledge about environmental education. CBNRM officers have come to our village to teach us and help us learn about how to manage and hunt wild animals. The officers have taught us how to hunt, count wild animals and spot wild animal droppings. Then they gave us machines to use when counting animals in the wild. An official from the Ministry of Environment also added that: Before CBNRM, people used to be involved in illegal hunting, but it is bad because it benefits only individuals. Communities or vi llages that are involved in CBNRM activities are benefiting as a group. They have begun to police their own resource s (wildlife), and this has so far reduced illega l hunting in some areas. Summary of Results: Public Sector Major themes were iden tified and responses were com pared and contrasted within subjects and across local and national public sector participants. Based on th e different accounts of issues by individual participants, five major them es were identified: community ecotourism development, knowledge about eco tourism, management issues, development challenges, and community integration. In addition, there were mu ltiple subthemes within each individual theme (Table 4-15). The results show diverse perspectives w ith regards to knowledge of and support for community-based ecotourism development. Percep tions also differed with regards to general conservation attitudes toward KTP as a Transf rontier Park. The majority were knowledgeable about the concept of Transfrontie r protected areas, especially Kgal agadi Transfrontier Park. They indicated awareness that Gemsbok National Park (Botswana) and Kalahari Gemsbok National Park (South Africa) were amalgamated as a Tr ansfrontier Park. Many representatives outlined
184 costs and benefits of KTP as a co-owned and managed park, particularly to adjacent communities. The benefits included: shared management costs, reduced poaching, collaboration and partnerships, and increased signifi cance of KTP. Nearly all of th e participants expressed support for community-based ecotourism development and the availability of the rich and unique resources for nature and culture-based tourism. However, there were negative perspectives a bout KTP as a Transfrontier protected area. Generally, participants revealed challenges that included: land owners hip and control issues, problem animal control, poor communication with Pa rk authorities, lack of transparency with regards to Park activities, lack of local invo lvement in Park management, and inequality and favoritism with regards to benefits sharing, especially part-time employment. Collectively, participants expressed the need for change in the management a pproach of KTP to ensure active involvement and full participation of equal benefits for adjacent local communities. The issue of empowerment of local residents wa s also discussed by all particip ants. Another critical concern was the need for government to provide support infr astructure and superstr ucture for tourism both inside and outside KTP.
185 Table 4-1. Socio-demographic characteristics of residents Characteristics Frequency Percentage Gender (N=746) Male 334 45 Female 412 55 Age (N=746) 18-30 305 41 31-40 178 24 41-50 118 16 51-60 70 9 61+ 73 10 Household size (N=742) 1 person 70 9 2-4 224 30 5-7 240 32 8-10 125 17 10+ persons 87 12 Education (N=746) No schooling 123 16 Primary 155 21 Secondary (JC) 242 32 Secondary (COSC/BGSC) 136 18 Tech/vocational 56 8 University degree 44 6 Employment status (N=744) Formal employment 231 31 Part time employment 143 19 Self employment 175 24 Unemployed 186 25 Retired 9 1 Monthly household income (N=739) Less P500 196 26 501-1,000 118 16 1001-1500 74 10 1501-2,000 62 8 2001-2500 31 4 2501-3,000 34 5 3001+ 224 30 Village/settlements (N=746) Ncaang 37 5 Ukhwi 59 8 Zutshwa 55 7 Tshane 89 12 Khawa 75 10
186 Table 4-1. Continued Characteristics Frequency Percentage Struizendam 44 6 Bokspits 53 7 Tsabong 212 28 Kang 122 16 Ethnicity (N=745) Basarwa 53 7 Bangologa 106 14 Batlharo 157 21 Baherero 20 3 Bakgalagadi 210 28 Banama 3 0.4 Coloreds 98 13 Other 98 13.1 Length of residence years (N=746) Since birth 501 67 1-2 years 126 17 6-10 47 6 10+ 72 10 Location/proximity (N=746) No idea 199 27 under 30km 87 12 31-60 73 10 61-120 99 13 121-240 114 15 241+ 174 23 Note: The valid percentages have been rounded to equal 10%
187 Table 4-2 Frequency distributions (percentages) for residents knowledge of ecotourism activities in the area. Questions Response (percentages) Yes No Dont know There are guesthouse/lodges for visitors in my village. 96.0 3.1 0.9 There are campsites for visito rs and tourists to use wh en in my village. 54.6 35.5 9.9 Many visitors who come to KTP stay in my district. 43.7 39.4 16.8 Many Batswana visit my district st rictly for meetings, funerals & business. 75.5 16.8 7.5 Many people from the Kalahari region visit my area for recreation/tourism. 55.8 29.2 14.9 Community campsites outside KTP accrue more money from visitors. 39.3 24.7 35.3 Revenue from community-based tourism benefits many people in my village 32.6 44.1 23.2 KTP provides opportunities for community development projects. 27.9 46.2 25.2 There is a cultural village for tourism in my district. 18.6 61.1 20.2 Ecotourism is important to my community. 89.4 5.0 5.5 Communitybased ecotourism is essential for my community. 87.8 4.8 7.2 Table 4-3. Frequency distribut ions (percentages) for commun ity concern about tourism Statements NC SC MC VC EC # of Cases Destroy our environment 15.8 10.1 14.2 41.0 18.9 746 Change our cultural traditions 13.3 9.1 11.9 39.0 26.7 746 Increase social ills (e.g. crime) 4.8 4.6 7.8 39.1 43.4 746 Increase incidents of HIV/AIDS infections 3.9 4.2 5.1 30.3 56.2 745 Loss of grazing land for our livestock if more hotels & infrastructure are built 12.6 7.8 14.2 44.8 20.6 746 Items coded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1=Not all concerned (NC), 2= Some-what concerned (SC), 3= Moderate concerned (MC) 4= Very concerned (VC), 5= Extremely concerned (EC)
188 Table 4-4. Purpose for residents visit to Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (Participation) Responses N=746 Purpose of visit Yes % No % Recreation/tourism 171 23 574 77 See wild animals, birds & nature 176 24 569 76 Veldt resource collection 8 1 737 99 Park management meeting 24 3 721 97 Other 140 19 605 81
189 Table 4-5. Frequency distri butions (percentage) for cons ervation attitudes to KTP Item/statement SD D N A SA # of cases KTP should be protected fo r benefit of our future generations. 0.4 0.4 1.3 42.9 55.0 746 KTP conservation has taken our land from us*. 17.8 51.7 9.5 17.8 3.1 746 It is important to protect KTP fo r survival of plants. 0.8 3.6 3.2 68.0 24.3 745 Farmers dont have land to cultivate and graze livestock due to KTP*. 19.2 51.7 9.0 15.8 4.3 746 Staff from KTP has done nothing for villagers lives*. 6.4 36.2 20.0 29.8 7.6 746 People who illegally kill a nd eat wild animals in KTP should not be fined or jailed*. 35.1 44.8 3.5 7.4 9.0 744 KTP is for tourists and we are not allowed to visit*. 24.4 61.1 6.4 6.8 0.9 744 It is better if some parts in KTP be allocated to the local people to use for agriculture*. 19.7 49.7 7.4 19.2 3.6 743 If hunting and grazing in KTP is allowed then wildlife will disappear. 2.4 6.3 3.6 57.4 30.0 744 KTP wild animals do not cause problems in our village. 8.8 37.5 11.7 34.6 7.4 746 If there is unlimited access to forest resources in KTP (Firewood, medicinal plants, forest foods) they will all disappear. 3.4 6.7 5.4 61.7 22.9 746 It is important for government to devote more money toward a strong a conservation program for KTP. 1.2 3.9 4.4 62.9 27.5 745 KTP provides jobs for people from the village. 5.4 31.1 12.1 42.4 9.1 746 KTP is being managed for the local people. 4.2 35.3 16.4 35.3 8.7 743 I am happy to have my village next to KTP. 0.9 6.4 9.5 66.2 16.2 741 It is important to protect KTP for the survival of wildlife. 1.6 1.5 2.9 61.9 32.0 746 Items coded on a 5 point scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree (SD), 2=disagree (D), 3=neutral (N), 4=agree (A) 5=strongly agree (SA). Note: *Items were reverse coded prior to analysis.
190 Table 4-6. Frequency distributi ons (percentage) for residents perceptions about communitybased ecotourism development (CBE) Statement SD D N A SA #.of cases CBE increases income and standard of living in the community. 1.2 6.2 10.2 62.3 19.8 744 CBE increases opportunities for the community. 1.3 10.2 7.5 61.5 19.0 743 CBE promotes equal sharing of benefits form community projects. 2.3 10.7 20.9 52.1 13.7 744 CBE provides educational experiences for local communities. 1.2 4.3 11.0 57.9 25.2 743 CBE creates problems to local people in my village*. 12.6 57.8 13.0 13.8 2.8 746 CBE enhances the quality of life of local communities. 1.9 8.2 12.6 63.9 12.9 742 CBE promotes meeting new people & cultural exchange. 1.1 2.8 5.6 64.1 26.0 743 CBE improves understanding & image of my community 2.3 5.8 8.8 65.8 16.9 743 CBE enhances local ar ts and crafts in communities. 1.9 3.9 7.2 63.0 23.6 743 CBE discourages preservation of cultural resources*. 16.6 50.1 8.2 19.8 4.8 743 CBE provides casual earning opportunities by selling grass, crafts, firewood, berries, mahupu. 2.7 9.4 8.3 61.7 17.7 743 CBE protects and supports wildlife resources. 0.5 0.9 3.8 68.5 26.0 744 CBE supports conservation of forests or veldt resources. 0.4 1.1 5.6 68.9 23.6 743 CBE increases support for natural resource conservation. 0.5 1.6 5.6 68.4 23.2 741 Items coded on a 5-pt scale ranging from 1=str ongly disagree (SD), 2=Di sagree (D), 3=Neutral (N), 4=Agree (A), 5=strongly ag ree (SA). Note: *Items reve rse coded prior to analysis.
191 Table 4-7. Frequency distributions (percentage) for residents s upport for conservation of KTP Statements SO O N S SS # of cases Support KTP as a Transfrontier Park 9.4 11.9 6.7 51.7 20.0 744 Support current management staff at KTP 1.1 14.6 19.2 51.5 13.5 745 Support creation of buffer and WMAs 2.1 6.2 13.0 58.8 19.6 744 Support regulation and guidelines for KTP 4.3 7.6 15.3 54.2 18.5 745 Support protection of KTP as a conservation area 0.4 1.2 2.8 65.5 29.8 743 Items coded on a 5-pt scale ranging from 1= Strongly Oppose (SO), 2=Oppose (O), 3=Neutral (N), 4=Support(S), 5=Strongly Support (SS) Table 4-8. Residents knowledge about creation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park Variable/Item Respondents (N) Percentage Ecotourism 69 9.3 Conservation of wildlif e & plant resources 565 75.9 Other Reasons 30 4.0 Dont know 80 10.7 Total 744 100 Table 4-9. Frequency distribut ions (percentages) of reside nts support CBE development Statements SO O N S SS # of cases Promotes local involvement in tourism activities. 1.1 1.6 7.1 72.5 17.4 744 Promotes preservation of local culture and traditions. 1.3 3.8 10.5 59.0 24.8 741 Promotes environmental education for local people. 0.8 2.0 8.3 64.2 24.0 741 Encourages local participa tion in tourism planning & development. 0.9 3.8 11.7 62.7 20.2 741 Promotes collective income for the community. 1.9 4.8 14.5 60.9 17.4 742 Encourages conservation of na tural resources. 0.8 1.2 3.9 65.0 28.6 742 Items coded on a 5-pt scale ranging from 1= Strongly Oppose (SO), 2=Oppose (O), 3=Neutral (N), 4=Support(S), 5=Strongly Support (SS)
192 Table 4-10. Correlations: Resident s support for CBE development Support for CBE index Perception index Attitude index Concern index Participation Age Gender Education Residence Distance Support for CBE index 1.00 Perception index .55*** 1.00 Attitude index .41*** .45*** 1.00 Concern index .12*** .09** -.01 1.00 Participation .01 -.02 -.03 -.06 1.00 Age .08* -.02 -.06 .09** .10** 1.00 Gender .02 .00 .05 -.05 .18*** -.01 1.00 Education -.14*** -.06 -.02 -.16*** .01 .54*** .04 1.00 Residence .11** -.04 -.11** .17*** .05 .69*** -.10** -.49*** 1.00 Distance -.03 .11** .01 -.00 -. 14*** -.07* .02 .13*** -.14*** 1.00 ***= P<0.001 **=P<0.01 *=P<0.05 (2-tailed) Table 4-11. Standard Multiple linear regression analysis for predicting support for communitybased ecotourism development. Independent variable (s) Unstandardized Coefficient (B) SEB Standardized Coefficient ( ) Research Variables Perception index 0.529 0.040 .446*** Attitudes index 0.284 0.043 .218*** Concern index 0.037 0.019 0.058* Participation (Use level) 0.020 0.034 0.018 Socio-demographics Age -0.002 0.002 -0.042 Gender 0.024 0.034 0.021 Level of education -0.053 0.043 -0.047 Length of residency 0.004 0.001 0.142*** Distance/proximity 0.000 0.000 -0.051 R =0.351; Adjusted R = 0.349. F (9,736) =45.43***; ***=p<0.001; **=p< 0.01; *=p< 0.05
193 Table 4-12. Correlations: Re sidents support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park Support for KTP index Perception index Attitude index Concern index Participation Age Gender Education Residence Distance Support for KTP index 1.00 Perception index .26*** 1.00 Attitude index .39*** .45*** 1.00 Concern index .22*** .09** -.01 1.00 Participation .03 -.02 -.03 -.06 1.00 Age .08* -.02 -.06 .09** .10** 1.00 Gender .08* .00 -.05 -.05 .18*** -.01 1.00 Education -.16*** -.06 -.02 -.16*** .01 .59*** .04 1.00 Residence .04 -.04 -.11** .17*** .05 .69*** -10** -.49*** 1.00 Distance -.12*** .11*** .01 -.00 -.14*** .-07* .02 .13*** -14*** 1.00 ***= P<0.001 **=P<0.01 *=P<0.05 (2-tailed) Table 4-13. Standard Multiple regression an alysis for predicting support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Independent variable (s) Unstandardized Coefficient (B) SEB Standardized Coefficient ( ) Research Variables Perception index 0.122 0.049 0.091* Attitudes index 0.521 0.054 0.351*** Concern index 0.143 0.023 0.201*** Participation (Use level) 0.028 0.042 0.022 Socio-demographics Age 0.001 0.002 0.034 Gender 0.091 0.042 0.072* Level of education -0.127 0.053 -0.099* Length of residency -0.001 0.001 -0.033 Distance/proximity -0.001 0.000 -0.120*** R =0.243; adjusted R = 0.234 F (9, 736) =26.307***; ***=p< 0.001; **=p<0.01; *=p< 0.05
194 Figure 4-1. Factors that predic t residents support for Comm unity-based ecotourism (CBE). Note: ***=p< 0.001; **=p< 0.01; *=p< 0.05; a: Length of Residence (.142***) Figure 4-2. Factors that predict residents support for Kgalagadi Tr asnfrontier Park (KTP). Note: ***=p< 0.001; **=p<0.01; *=p<0.05; a: Distance/proximity (-0.120***), b: Education (-0.099*) c: Gender (.072*)
195 Table 4-14. Profile of representative s (members) of the Public Sector Gender Pseudonym Organization/Inst itution Region Representatives Female Latife Ministry of Environment, Wildlife & Tourism Gaborone National Male Fosante Department of Environmental Affairs Gaborone National Female Department of Wildlife (Parks Division) Gaborone National Female Letsadi Department of Wildlife (CBNRM Unit) Gaborone National Male Bushielo Botswana Tourism Board Gaborone National Female Mafie Wildlife Department (Subdistrict) Kgalagadi north Local Male Tatiana Local authority Kgalagadi south Local Male Pineke Local authority Kgalagadi north Local Male Wenzo Community Extension Unit Kgalagadi south Local Male Scubie Xaxe! Development Trust (CBO) Kgalagadi north Local Female Wendy Khawa Development Trust (CBO) Kgalagadi south Local Male Moagi Village Development committee Kgalagadi south Local Male Greta Village Farmers Association Kgalagadi south Local Table 4-15. Thematic analysis for interview data Key Themes SubThemes Community ecotourism development Knowle dge and appreciation of community-based ecotourism Perception of community ecotourism Knowledge about KTP Transfrontier Area Significance and recognition Collaboration and partnership issues Management issues Policy and co-management challenges Human-wildlife interactions Land ownership and control Development challenges Infrastructure for tourism Cultural heritage for tourism development Community integration Park benefits to local communities Local involvement and participation
196 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION A system atic analysis of residents attitudes and perspectives about tourism can help government planners, local author ity decision makers, protected area authorities, and tourism developers and promoters to iden tify stakeholder concerns and i ssues in order for appropriate policies and actions to be formulated and implem ented (Allen et al., 1988; Byrd, 2007; De Lopez, 2001; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Murphy, 1981; Welad ji et al., 2003). Also, st rategic planning of Transfrontier protected areas is a complex task due to the interdependence of multiple stakeholders that ought to be involved in manage ment and conservation of shared resources (Byrd & Cardenas, 2006; Jamal & Gertz, 1995; Ke lson & Lilieholm, 1999; Schoon, 2008). Currently, governments in developing countries, notably in Africa (e.g. Botswana, Namibia; South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia) have de veloped community-based ecotourism in and around PAs to benefit adjacent lo cal communities and to preserve and conserve ecological resources (Akama, 1996; Jones, 2005; Murphr ee, 2001; Nelson, 2004; Spenceley, 2008; Zuich, 2009). Therefore, it is paramount that the perspec tives of all stakeholder groups (in particular, resident communities) be understood so that they both can play a lead role in the issues that pertain to ecotourism development and planning in their area (Khan, 1997; Parker & Khare, 2005; Stem et al., 2003). It is also impor tant that factors that affect or influence residents support for conservation of Transboundary Protected Areas with in their local communities are identified to benefit policy reviews and im plementation (Allendorf, 2007; Bruyere et al., 2009; Kelson & Lilieholm, 1999; Ormsby & Mannie, 2006). As an exploratory effort, this study focu sed on two stakeholder groups: residents and public sector. Specifically, this study examined fa ctors that influence or predict stakeholders support for community-based ecotourism development and support for KTP as a Transfrontier
197 protected area. The discussion of results of each stakeholder group and integration of the findings with respect to implications are furt her expanded in the following sections. Resident Perspectives The study id entified the multiplicity of factors that can be uti lized to explain or predict residents perceptions about CBE, support for CBE development and for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Overall, the majority of the resident s had strong support for both CBE development and KTP as a Transfrontier Park. In th is discussion, support refers to a situation in which residents would exhibit positive attitudes toward general c onservation of KTP as a Transfrontier protected area or CBE development. Support for Community-Based Ecotourism Development Ecotourism development is founded on the notio n of safeguarding natural and cultural resources in PAs (Honey, 1999; Weaver, 2001). CBE has become an important livelihood option for rural communities in the developing world. Therefore, it is important to identify and understand the factors or elements that determ ine perceptions and suppor t for community-based ecotourism development in communities adj acent to Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Ecotourism development and successes in and around PAs rely heavily on local communities support and willingness to participate in park-bas ed tourism and conservation projects (Lai & Nepal, 2006; Ormsby & Mannie, 200 6; Sikaraya et al., 2002; Stem et al., 2003). Thus, this study further sought to determine f actors that influence or predic t residents support for CBE development. Results of this study identif ied four variables (percep tion about CBE, conservation attitude, length of residency, and community concern), which have statistically significant positive relationships with support for CBE development. All the selected socio-demographic variables: age, gender, educa tion and distance/proximity were poor predictors for support.
198 Perception about CBE was found to have the strongest relationship with support for CBE development. The results are consistent with several previous perception a nd attitude studies that found that the majority of residents in most dest inations have associated tourism with general socio-economic benefits (Byrd, 2003; Gursoy & Ruth erford, 2004; Gursoy et al., 2002; Hiwasaki, 2006; Jurowski, 1994; Jurowski et al., 1997; Ke ogh, 1990; Sikaraya et al., 2002; Teye et al., 2002) as well as personal benefits (OviedoGarcia, Castellnos-Verdugo & Martin-Ruiz, 2008; Yason & Pfister, 2008). In all of these studies, po sitive perceptions about tourism influenced local residents support for its developmen t. However, it is important to note that most previous studies were highly varied and tended to be site-specific (Byrd & Ca rdenas, 2006; Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski, 1994; Jurowski et al., 1997; Lepp, 2008; Penningt on-Gray, 2005). More specifically, Gursoy & Rutherford (2004) found that reside nts perceived sociocultural and economic benefits of tourism to have a strong influence towards further development in Idaho, US. In Ghana, local residents of Lake Bosomtwe Basin equated tourism advancement in their town with economic benefits. The strong support for tourism in the community was due to its potential to generate employ ment, additional income and more businesses in their area (see (African Consulting Engineeers, 2000; Am uquandoh & Dei, 2007). Similarly, residents perception about tourism was associ ated with revenue-sharing and infrastructural development in Kenya (Bruyere, et al., 2009). In these case studie s, local people were aw are of tourism projects and there was a desire for increased activities. Al so, tourism was at a developmental stage at the respective destinati on (Butler, 1980). The results of this study are similar to t hose of many perception st udies (especially in destinations where tourism and/or ecotourism were at the initial stage of growth) whereby local residents have predominantly pos itive perceptions and very few negative perceptions of tourism
199 development outcomes (Ormsby & Mannie, 2006; Oviedo-Garcia et al., 2008). In this study residents did not seem to be aware of the negativ e effects that ecotourism development can create for their community due to la ck of planning and management (see Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). As experienced in othe r destinations (Butle r, 1980; Doxey, 1975), residents attitudes towards c onservation activities and touris m development in and around PA may change over time. Thus, it is paramount that when policies that deal with ecotourism development and resource conservation are formulat ed, formal education and local capacities be prioritized and emphasized to benefit local communities. Residents were also asked to indicate their general conservation att itude toward KTP and their support for CBE development. This study found generally favorable c onservation attitudes, which subsequently led to a significant positive relationship with support for CBE development. The present study showed that nearly all reside nts (90%) noted that they supported CBE because it promoted local involvement in tourism activitie s, while 84% supported CBE for its potential to promote preservation of local cultures and trad itions within local communities. Also, 88.7% indicated strong support with resp ect to the importance of CBE for their community as was the case with the previously discussed tourism perception stud ies; this study is supported by the literature, where similar attitude patterns were found. In these studies, resident communities who expressed pro-conservation attit udes toward a PA also indicated strong support for park-based tourism (see Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). Also, previous research di scovered that residents who derived economic benefits from conservation-re lated activities were su pportive of ecotourism development (Alexander, 2000; Fiallo & Jacobs on, 1995; Ormsby & Mannie, 2006; Stem et al., 2003). In Madagascar, Mahalevona and Ambohitralanana residents perceived Masoala National Park as an economic benefit (Ormsby & Mannie, 2006).
200 In this study, when residents were asked if revenue from community-based tourism benefited people in the community, 64%1 indicated no benefits. Overall, resident communities showed positive general conserva tion attitudes toward KTP which subsequently led to support for CBE. Length of residency was also a good predic tor for support for CBE development. The results suggest that long-term re sidency in the area has an influe nce on residents support for CBE development. This could mean that long term re sidents could be attached to the community so much that they believe that CBE could bring pos itive change. The findings in the literature with respect to this relationship are mixed. Findings are consistent with some of the previous studies that discovered that duration of residency in the community influenced support for tourism development (Haralambopoulis & Pizam, 1996; McC ool & Martin, 1994). Also, local residents who had lived in the co mmunity much longer expressed their desire to experience more tourism growth and were very supportiv e of further developments (Andereck et al., 2005; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). However, the present findings differed from Allen et al. (1988), Pizam (1978) and Johnson, Snepenger & Akis, (1994), who found that residents with longer-term residency in the community were more likely to express nega tive attitudes toward tourism advancement and ultimately show less support. Also, Jurowskis (1994) study among rural communities in Virginia discovered that length of residence did not have predictive validity with support for tourism development. Such results may be due to the fact that local residents who li ved in the area longer may have observed tourism growth and its associat ed negative changes, and as a result they have become less supportive of its development (Um & Crompton, 1987). 1 Response no and dont know combined.
201 Community concern about tourism was f ound to have a positive and significant relationship with support for CBE development. Th e majority of the resi dents (87%) were very concerned that CBE could increase the incidence of HIV/AIDS infections, while a substantial number (83%) were also concerned that CBE will increase social ills (e.g., crime) in their communities. Other members of the community ( 66%) were concerned th at CBE would change their cultural traditions. Although the majority of residents indicat ed their concern about possible negative effects that tourism coul d bring to the community, surpri singly they still demonstrated positive attitudes and support for CBE development. These results were consistent with Gursoy & Rutherfords (2004) study in Idaho whereby residents showed concern over increased traffic, littering, and crime, while still showing a strong overa ll support for tourism. In other studies, local residents were concerned about crime, noise, overcrowding and congestion, but the general findings showed that residents were still suppor tive because they perceived tourism as an economic tool (Andereck et al., 2005; Burns & Howard, 2003; Dyer et al ., 2007; Jurowski, 1994; Keogh, 1990; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). However, negative effects of tourism also le d to less support for the tourism industry in those communities where residents were too wary about tourism and growth (Banks, 2003). In the present study, even if Kgalagadi residents expressed concern about the potential negative impacts of tourism, they still expressed support for CBE development in their community. This may be partly explained by the fact that resident communities have positive attitudes toward tourism in general, since there are few alternative economic or livelihood opportuniti es in their respective areas. In addition, Gursoy et al. (2002) conclu ded that, the level of concern about ones community and the extent to which residents use the resource base have no effect on their evaluation of the costs and benefits of tourism (p. 94). Thus, it is logical that those who have no
202 employment and also have knowledge of eco tourism would express strong support for CBE development in the community. Concomitantly, it is feasible that in a destination where tourism is still very new, local people would exhibit positive perceptions and behavior towards its development. Similar to residents of the Bo somtwe Basin in Ghana (Amuquandoh & Dei, 2007), local residents of Kgalagadi equated tourism deve lopment with socio-economic benefits. Social ills such as crimes are almost non-existent and cases of HIV/AIDS are still very low (KDDP 5, 2005). Thus, support for CBE development was plausi bly linked to socio-ec onomic opportunities. The lack of relationship between partic ipation (use level) and support for CBE development denoted that resident s participation or use level of the KTP does not influence or determine support of CBE development. Results indi cated that close to half of the total sample had visited KTP for reasons that included recrea tion/tourism (23%, N=171); interest in wild animals, birds and nature (24%, N= 176) and other reasons (shopping, visiting friends and relatives, in transit) (19%, N=140), while onl y 3% (N=24) attended the park management meeting. Given the low buying power of the commun ities as well as unemployment and illiteracy among residents (KDDP 5, 2005), resident visitor num bers to KTP can be regarded as relatively high. Even so, participation in park activities does not guarantee support for CBE development. Previous studies have found that pa rticipation (use level) influences residents level of support for the tourism industry (Cordes & Ibrahim, 1999; Lankford & Howard, 1994). The results of this study are different from previous studies because there was a lack of relationship between participation (use level) and support for CBE development (see Gursoy et al., 2002; Keogh, 1990; Perdue et al., 1987). The four socio-demographic variables (age, gender, education, and distance/proximity) did not predict support for CBE development. The r eason for this finding could be due in part to
203 the fact that tourism is very new to the area. Th us, local people showed positive attitudes toward tourism regardless of their age, gender or education. These findings are supported by Tosun (2002) who found that the genera l socio-demographic variables did not determine residents support for tourism advancement in the community. There was also a lack of rela tionship between distance/proximity of residents home to the KTP and their support for CBE development. The relationship between distance and support for tourism has received mixed findings in the liter ature due to varying factors. For instance, Jurowski & Gursoy (2004) found that the further residents lived from th e tourism resource, the less they supported tourism de velopment. Belisle & Hoy (1980) discovered that Santa Marta residents in Colombia, especially those who lived close to the tourism/recreation zone showed positive perceptions about tourism. Local residents who derived benefits from tourism activity became supportive of its advancement in th eir area of abode (Belisle & Hoy, 1980). Based on the previous work conducted in the area, tourism was equated with perceived economic benefits, especially income and empl oyment (Moswete, 2007; Moswete et al., 2009b). In this present study residents are not economically dependent on tour ism activity, but their support for CBE development is elevated. It is worthy of note that overall support for CBE development was not predicted by respondents age, gender, education level or distance or proximity of communities to the KTP. Although the socio-demographic variables were poor predictors of support for CBE development, they ar e essential elements of research when dealing with local peoples perceptions and attitudes especially in developing countries including Botswana (Amuquandoh & Dei, 2007; Juro wski & Gursoy, 2004; Kideghesho, Roskaft & Kaltenborn, 2007; Kalternborn, Bjerke, Nyahongo & Williams, 2006; Lepetu, 2007).
204 The study revealed factors that influen ce or predict residents support for CBE development as: perception about CBE, general c onservation attitude, re sidency and community concern. Thus, the conceptual model was found to be a significant predictor of residents support for CBE development. The next section discusse s residents support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park based on the same predictor variables used in model 1. Support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park Collectively, six variables were found to be good predictors of support for KTP as a Transfrontie r Park: perception about CBE, conservation att itudes, community concern, distance/proximity and two socio-demographic variables (gender and education). Overall, conservation attitude was the strongest predictor for residents support, and was found to have a positive and highly significant relationship with support for KTP as a Transfrontier protected area. In this study, a substantial number of resi dents held positive conservation attitudes about KTP, which ultimately led to strong support for KTP as a Transboundary protected area. For example, almost all residents (98%) agreed that KTP should be protected to benefit future generations. Also, the majority (91%) agreed that it is essential for gove rnment to devote more money toward a strong conservation program for KTP, and (87%) agreed that if hunting and grazing were allowed in KTP, wild animals will a ll disappear. This finding is similar to other attitude and perception studies, in which residents conservation attitudes were found to have positive links with support for PAs in devel oping countries (Infield, 1988; Lepp, 2004; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). In such studies, residents positiv e attitudes toward conservation were a result of derived benefits from a protected area and tourism development (see Durant & Durant, 2008; Newmark et al., 1993). This was confirmed by Lepetus (2007) study on residents conserva tion attitudes toward Kasane Forest reserve in Chobe, whereby 60% (N =163) indicated that they had obtained socio-
205 economic benefits from the reserve, and therefor e were supportive of the reserve. However, 42% of the residents also noted livestock predation as a concern, but still held positive attitudes towards the reserve (Lepetu, 2007). Similarl y, Mbaiwa (2008) found that communities of Mababe, Khwai and Sankoyo in Ngamiland, Botswana held strong attitudes to conservation of sable antelope, thatching grass, and giraffe due to the significant benefits accrued from tourism development in their villages. Also, Ormsby & Kaplin (2005) revealed that residents who obtained benefits from ecotourism-related activit ies and forest resources from Masoala National Park in Madagascar expressed positive attit udes toward the Park. Generally, studies have consistently demonstrated that positive conser vation attitudes were heavily linked with accrued benefits (Baral & Heinen, 2007; Durant & Du rant, 2008; Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Nyaupane & Thapa, 2004; Ormsby & Mannie, 2006; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). Additionally, favorable conservation attitudes and support for PAs were found to increase with household affluence (Infield, 1988; Kideghesho et al., 2007; Lepetu, 2008). Conversely, negative attitudes and less support were usually associated with wildlife conflicts and lack of access to park resources and benefits (Bauer, 2003; Newmark et al., 1993; 1994). For example, Newmark et al. (1993) found that 71% of local residents held negative attitudes toward Mukumi National Park and Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania. In the present study, although favorable conservati on attitudes were demonstrated, there were still some issues that resonated among residents. For example, 46% of residents indicated that KTP did not provide opportunities for community development activi ties, while 44% noted that revenue from community-based tourism did not benefit many indi viduals in the area. Also, some members of the community indicated that they had farms a nd cattle posts near KTP, and about 46% noted livestock loss and crop damage from wild animals from the Pa rk. Additionally, 43% of the
206 residents indicated that staff from KTP had done nothing to impr ove villagers lives. However, these negative issues, did not seem to have in fluenced their support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. This finding deviates from the general literatu re as researchers have identified that negative conservation attitudes among local communities led to less support for the respective PA in adjacent local communities (Bauer, 2003; Brandon, 2007; Gadd, 2005; Lepp, 2007; Meskell, 2005; Naughton-Treves, 1997; Newmar k et al., 1993; Newmark et al., 1994; Parry & Campbell, 1992; Sekhar, 2003). Moreover, in th e context of this study, the lo cal residents were generally very poor (Arntzen, 2001; KDDP, 2005; Totolo & Chanda, 2003) but still demonstrated support for KTP. Similarly, Arjunan et als (2006) st udy on local attitudes toward conservation of Kalakad-Mundanthuri Tiger reserve discovered th at poor people were supportive of the PA whether they obtained benefits or not. Hence, it can be concluded that local residents appreciation of nature (wildlif e and wilderness) can be consid ered as intangible benefits. Community concern about tourism was found to have a positive relationship with support for KTP. This finding was not e xpected, as it was hypothesized that a negative relationship would exist. Previous studies have id entified that local residents w ho had obtained benefits from Parkbased tourism projects were likel y to perceive fewer negative tourism impacts (Liu & Var, 1986; Liu & Wall, 2006; Perdue et al., 1991). The more positive residents were about benefits derived from tourism, the more support th ey held for tourism development in their community, especially when tourism was newly introduced (Butler, 198 0; 1998). However, recent research has found that residents who have indicat ed concern about the negative effects of tourism in their communities still expressed strong support for pa rk-based tourism development (Dyer et al., 2007; Stem et al., 2003). Similar re sults were also found in this st udy, as the majority of residents (65%) were very concerned that tourism might contribute to loss of grazing land for their
207 livestock if more tourist infrastructure were built. In addition, residents (60%) worried about possible harm to the environment if tourism activiti es were to increase in their areas of abode. This finding offers a useful insight for the co mmunities of Kgalagadi, who viewed tourism as beneficial even though their knowledge or awarene ss of negative effects of tourism development was acknowledged. Hence, it holds true that when tourism is new in the area, residents view it positively due to its perceived economic benefits (Dyer et al., 2007), thereby influencing local residents to support it. Such an outcome in this study was likely as tourism is new to the region and there were perceived expectations of econo mic benefits. Therefore, residents perceived economic benefits of tourism led to subsequent support for KTP, and quite possibly outweighed the social and environmenta l costs in their minds. Perception about CBE was found to have a pos itive and significant relationship with support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. An excep tionally high number of residents (92%) agreed that CBE has the potential to increase support for natural resource conservation, while (79%) agreed that it can provide cas ual earning opportunities for local communities where they could sell veldt resources (thatching grass, wild fruits). The pos itive perception about CBE is substantiated by residents high le vel of knowledge about tourism-re lated activities that occur in their areas. When residents were asked if CBE was an essential industry in their communities, almost all (89%) indicated that it was very important. It is inte resting and encouraging, because tourism development in the study area is still at an initial stage of the destinat ion lifecycle (Butler, 1980). This finding is supported by previous research, in which local residents in communities where tourism growth was still at an early stage tended to expre ss favor about potential benefits of tourism, and ultimately indicated support for its development (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Sikaraya et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 2001; Yason & Pfister, 2008).
208 In this study, residents positive perception ab out CBE development seemed to drive their strong support for KTP as a Transboundary protected area. Generally, resi dents agreed that if tourism activities at KTP were increased, more visitors would come, and employment would be created (C. Mothelesi, persona l communication, December 6, 2008). Similarly, residents general perceptions about CBE were premised solely on th e positive aspects of to urism in the community, such as employment creation opportunities and reve nues. Other perception studies helped to put these results in perspective and also added to unde rstanding of local reside nts perspectives with regards to potential ecotourism development (Lai & Nepal, 2006; Moswete et al., 2009b). The distance/proximity of communities to the Park had a significant negative relationship with support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Su pport was found to decrease with distance away from KTP. The results indicate th at the closer the communities or villages were to the boundary of the Park, the more support they held for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Support for KTP by communities located along buffer regions may have been influenced by access to resources. Such a finding has been identified, whereby positive attitudes and support of PAs were influenced by benefits obtained, such as easy a ccess to resources, e.g. firewood, forest foods (Ormsby & Kaplin, 2005). Conversely, previous studies have also shown that communities located far from PA express pro-conservation attit udes and strong support for a Pa rk (Akama, 1996; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Mordi, 1987; Parry & Campbell, 1992). Also, livestock predation and crop damage have been reported as major challenges for rural communities flanking national parks and ga me reserves (Brandon, 2007; Lepp, 2004; Mordi, 1987; Newmark et al., 1993; Roberson & Lawes, 2005). Local people are barred from killing these wild animals by both the countrys wildlife policies and international conservation laws. Less support towards PAs are also garnered as lo cal people perceive that animals are held in
209 higher regard than people, leading to suspicion of conservation and tour ism policies (Bauer, 2003; Bolaane, 2004; Lepp, 2004; Meske ll, 2005; Parry & Campbell, 1992). Overall, attitudes of local residents towards and support for KT P as a Transfrontier Park were strong, especially in villages that were very close to the Park. Of all the five socio-demographic variables in the model, two (education and gender) were found to have statistically signifi cant relationships with support fo r KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Education had a significant nega tive association with support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Essentially, residents with sec ondary or higher education were less likely to express support for KTP. This was contrary to some of the findings in the literature and was unexpected. In Ecuador, education was found to have a positive influe nce on local communities attitudes towards conservation of Machalila National Park (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995). Stem et al.s (2003) study of four communities adjacent to two PAs in Costa Rica also revealed th at high education levels were linked to strong conservation pers pectives. Recently, in their study on socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natura l resources in Serbia, Tomicevic, Shannon, & Milavanovic (2009) discovered that education had a positive influen ce on residents conservation attitudes of Tara National Park. In the present study, highly educated people were likely to understand park management and conservation policies and to realize if they were favorable. In this study, the level of support for the current management staff at KTP was supported by 65% of the residents, while the remaining proportion (35%) was comprised of t hose who opposed and also were neutral about KTP. Despite the fact that the majority of residents were supportive of KTP as a Transfrontier Park, there were other individua ls (21%) who strongly opposed KT P as Transfrontier Park, and these were likely to be th ose with higher education.
210 In this study, males were mo re likely than females to express support for KTP as a Transboundary protected area, possibly because males were constantly recruited by KTP management to help mend the Park boundary fe nce (Village Chief, personal communication, December 1, 2008). Also, mostly men were recruited and hired by the safari operator as animal trekkers (during hunting expeditions) and skinne rs and camp watchers during hunting season. The involvement of males in park-b ased wildlife tourism justifies their strong support for KTP as a Transboundary Park. This finding is supported by Tomicevic et al. (2009), whereby men who were actively connected and engaged to Tara Na tional Park via employment and other means had positive attitudes towards conservation and the Park. Conversely, support for PAs diminished among young men who were engaged in illegal hunting of wild an imals (Kideghesho et al., 2007; Mugisha, 2002). Another interesting finding was that age and length of resi dence were not good predictors for support for KTP as a Transfrontier protected area. Many studies have found that age plays an important role in conservation attitudes and behavi or, likely leading to va ried levels of support toward PA among residents (Lepetu, 2007; Kidegh esho et al., 2007; Stem et al., 2003; Tomicevic et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2001). For instance, elderly people were not supportive of conservation activities in PAs because they were denied ri ghts to resource use and therefore had negative attitudes toward Parks (Tomicevic et al., 2009 ). Lepetu (2007) found that young people were more dependant on forest resources, while elderl y people were less supportive of the Forest Reserve due to history and restric tive policies. Overall, although the majority of the residents held positive attitudes towards and support for KTP, th e influence of age did not predict support. Results also demonstrated that length of re sidency in the community was not significantly associated with support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. This finding deviated from the literature
211 as most recently Nicholas (2007) discovered th at long-term residency created a personal bond with the community or resource or an area and hence established support towards a PA. Conversely, De Boer & Baquete (1998) found that long-term residents who have lived in and around Maputo Elephant Reserve in Mozambique we re not supportive of the Reserve due to very restrictive conservation policies. Also, Newmark et al. (1993) found that long duration of stay in the community was associated with negative attitudes toward PA st aff. In this study, 67% of the sampled residents were born and raised in their respective communities. The lack of relationship between length of residency and support suggests that the creation and re view processes for KTP conservation programs cannot rely on length of residency as a predictor of support for the Transfrontier Park. Participation2 (use level) was also not found to have a significant relati onship with support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. The results revealed that only 42% of the sampled residents had visited KTP at some point in time while living in the district. Previous research has revealed that a lack of participation in touris m-related activities has caused rese ntment of conservation policies by local residents (Alexander, 2000; Bauer, 2003; Manwa, 2003; Meskell, 2005; Mordi, 1987; Weladji et al., 2003), exacerbated negative att itudes toward protected areas (Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001; Kideghesho et al., 2007; Peters, 1999), and result ed in a lack of interest in the general conservation of natural resources (De Boer & Baquete, 1998; Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Himoonde, 2007; Infield & Namara, 2001; Ki ss, 2004; Parry & Campbell, 1992; Twyman, 2001). Despite the fact that not many residents participated in activities at KTP, they still expressed positive and strong support for the Park. Participation was not a good predictor for support for KTP as a Transfrontier Pa rk, as there may be other salient factors not iden tified in this 2 Participation was dummy coded, with 1 representing those who had visited the Park for different reasons, including tourism and recreation.
212 study. For example, in Masoala National Park, Ma dagascar, Armsby & Kaplin (2005) found that the history of Park management, including residents attendance at Park meetings, visitation, and participation in community projects, had strongly influenced attitudes an d support for the Park. The results of this present study indicated that the factors that influence support were: conservation attitudes, community concern, perception about CBE, gender, education and distance/proximity. Participation (u se level), age of respondents, and length of residency were not good predictors of support for KTP. The interplay between conservation attitudes, community concern about tourism, perception of CBE, gender, education and proximity has provided insights into residents support for the Transboundary ar ea. These elements can be re-examined and studied in other diverse geographi c settings and protected areas. Public Sector Perspectives This section presents an overview of the public sector representatives (local & national) perspectives on their support for CBE devel opment and for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Collectively 13 officials from 11 organizations/ins titutions were contacted and interviewed, with 5 based in Gaborone and 8 from Kgalagadi District There were five females and eight males; the youngest representative was 24 a nd the oldest 78 years old. This section of the study was designed to identify and assess factors that influence the public sector stakeholder support for CBE development and for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. The study also sought to examine the public sector representatives knowledge of ecotourism, perceptions about community ecotourism, awar eness of KTP as a Transboundary area, park management, and community integration, as we ll as to assess stakeholder knowledge about CBNRM as an approach for natural resource co nservation. Understandin g perspectives about Transfrontier protected areas is recognized as a key attribute in the development of successful management plans to conserve a nd preserve conservation areas that would ultimately benefit local
213 adjacent communities and resources (see Allendorf, 2007; Jones, 2005; Schoon, 2008; Tao & Wall, 2008). The adoption of the CBNRM appro ach to wildlife res ource conservation in Botswana is one vital strategy devised to ensure remarrying of natural resource conservation and development (GOB, 2007; Rozemeijer, 2009). Theref ore, this study further sought to determine the differences and similarities in perspectiv es between local and national public sector representatives. The findings from the public sector revealed di verse perspectives about issues that pertain to knowledge and support for CBE development and for KTP as a Transboundary area. Generally, there was consensus about existing flaws in manage ment and park-related development activities. Some variations of opinions were noted between local and national public sector representatives in relation to collaboration and partnership initiatives, conserva tion projects, park management, tourism development and park benefits to adjacent local communities. The differences could have stemmed from the fact that par ticipants were drawn from various institutions and organizations, where individual representatives held different responsibilities, in addition to the diverse institutional objectives (see Table 4-14). More often, negative responses were discussed by representatives at th e local level. This could be attributed to the fact that they understood local issues better, since they resided in the district and interacted more effectively with local residents. An overwhelming majority of local and nationa l representatives demonstrated a high level of awareness of ecotourism. The results were very encouraging especially at the local level, as there was awareness of the availa bility of ecotourism-related res ources in their communities. The majority of the public sector officials believed th at cultural-heritage res ources were in abundance and that they could be exploited for ecotour ism development. These results indicated the importance of the Department of Tourisms edu cational and tourism awareness program (BTDP,
214 2003), and the fact that it had ultimately reached the Kgalagadi community, particularly among local leaders. With respect to knowledge of ecotourism, n early all representatives indicated that ecotourism encouraged local part icipation and equal sharing of benefits in communally-owned projects in which conservation of natural reso urces (mainly wildlife) was promoted. Generally, local officials noted that they had heard about ecotourism via the governments CBNRM initiatives, but seemed to have insufficient know ledge of ecotourism as business (Chanda et al., 2005; Moswete et al., 2009b). Based on the respon ses, participants may possess knowledge of ecotourisms potential economic benefits, but lack full understanding and experience. This condition triggers the need for increased capacitie s and additional educational training of local leaders, so that they can be at par with th e development in their ar ea. A general education program should target local author ities, including village chiefs. Education of local leaders (e.g., chiefs traditionally divine leaders) is impera tive, as the local chiefs can communicate various developmental activities or policy changes to the entire community via traditional institutions and village gatherings. In light of tourism development in the study area, there was also a unanimous agreement among local and national respondents that the dist rict is endowed with vast opportunities for ecotourism development. The district was often de scribed as a destination where aesthetic beauty and charm of natural and cultural landscapes in tertwined. Generally, the region was described as an area with considerable potential for CBE deve lopment, due to availability of the rich and unique resources. Some of the attractions cited included, but were not limited to, numerous desert fauna of high value (lions, leopard, cheetah, gi raffe, eland, gemsbok), Kalahari wilderness, massive and dramatic Kalahari desert landscap e (sand dunes, salt pans, fossil rivers; caves),
215 tangible (San/Basarwa handicraft) and intangible cu ltural-heritage attributes (cultural traditions, culture-scape). Previous literature demonstrates re sidents believe that tourism creates demand for local arts and crafts and desire s for knowledge about local cultur e in the community (Besculides et al., 2002). Although the repr esentatives expressed support for CBE development, many indicated distress with regards to tourism developments at KTP. Overwhelmingly, responses were linked to the urgent need for infrastructural de velopment inside the Botswana side of KTP and among the adjacent villages. All representatives e xpressed the need for the government to provide ecotourism infrastructure and also to create conditions for pr ivate-sector investment in ecotourism. Almost all respondents expresse d concern over the im balance of tourism advancement that existed in KTP because of bette r tourist facilities (e.g., tarmac roads, visitor information office, souvenir shops, petrol/gas st ation and a variety of lodging facilities) were available in the South African side of the Par k, while only campsites were available on the Botswana side (Figure 5-1). By and large, th ere was a common agreement about the disparity observed at KTP with regards to th e level of tourism development. Due to the availability of upscale tourism facilities and services on the South African site, nearly all representatives were concerned that revenues genera ted through tourism would accrue only for the South African government. Almost all local participants expressed their dissatisfaction that tourism deve lopment and conservation activities were dominated by the South African Park management. Negative responses, especially by some local representatives, indicated that, at a ratio of 88 to 4, considerably more borehol es were drilled on the South African (KGNP) side than on the Botswana side (KNP) following the conversion of the park into a Transfrontier. However, only a handful of re spondents noted the importance of sustainable projects, so that the beauty of KTP not be compro mised for the sake of tourism. However, GNP is
216 renowned for its pristine environs largely due to its unaltered la ndscapes and vegetation communities and wildlife resources (see SANParks & DWNP, 1997). Tourism development in the Kgalagadi region is generally low as many individuals are not engaged in tourism-related projects. Self empl oyment in tourism-related commerce is minimal across the district with people i nvolved in the accommoda tion sector. It is im portant to note that the majority of those involved in tourism-rela ted commerce have relevant business skills, strong financial capital and business interests. Craft-ma king with ostrich eggshells and hides and skin was also highlighted as a common activity among the San/Basarwa communities (Figure 5-2). A handful of villages were engaged in joint venture safari hunting ac tivities via CBNRM-CBO government initiatives: the Nqwaa Khobee Xeya Development Trust (KD13) (TLT, 1998), Qhaa Qhing Development Trust (KD 24) (MNRC, 2006), and Khawa Kopanelo Development Trust (KD 155) (TLT, 2005). Other CBNRM-CBOs6 have been established, but were not engaged in joint venture partnerships with a private opera tor at the time of this study (Kgathi, Personal communication, Novemeber 3, 2008). Subsequently, public sector offi cials perceived CBE as an act ivity with the potential to generate socio-economic benefits to rural comm unities, and that was highly recognized and appreciated as an essential livelihood alternat ive. The socio-economic gains highlighted were employment, business opportunities, income, and education. The overwhelm ing majority of the respondents expressed positive perceptions that further development of unexploited ecotourism resources could generate job opportunities and th ereby improve the standard of living of the 3 Comprised of 3 communities: Ncaang, Ngwatle and Ukhwi. 4 Zutshwa community 5 Khawa community 6 MAHUMO Trust KD 6, KOINAPHU Trust KD 12 and TSAMAMA Trust)
217 people (see Chanda et al., 2005; Moswete et al ., 2009b). This strong perception and favor for CBE development in the community could be pa rtly founded on the notion that tourism in the Kgalagadi is still in an explorat ory stage of the destination lifecycl e (Butler, 1980). It is worthy of note that the results of this study are remarkab ly similar to other pe rception studies (both qualitative and quantitative) that have been conducted both in the de veloping and developed world (see Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Ormsby & Mannie, 2006; Stem et al., 2003). In the present study, an overwhelming number of the representatives claimed that local communities derived only nominal benefits from KTP following its change in status as a Transfrontier Park. However, they were aware that entrance fees to the park were collected and shared between the governments of South Africa and Botswana as per the initial agreement (KTP Management Plan, 1997). Despite low or lack of Park (KTP) benef its to adjacent local communities, the public sector representatives still held strong attitudes toward KTP and perceptions about ecotourism develo pment in the Kgalagadi region. Generally there was an undisputed credence among national and local representatives that CBE could benefit all residents. Th is assertion is consistent with previous studies showing which local communities that accrue more socio-ec onomic benefits from tourism tend to have knowledge about the industry, a nd these communities therefore demonstrate strong support and favor for tourism development (Jurowski, 1994; Sika raya et al., 2002; Teye et al., 2002). Also, the level of knowledge about the t ourism industry generally influen ces residents perceptions and attitudes toward tourism developm ent (Gursoy et al., 2002; Jurowski et al., 2007; Sikaraya et al., 2007). However, there were divergent responses with respect to park bene fits to adjacent local communities. Only a few of the interviewees indicated that some communities derived benefits
218 from KTP. The benefits include d part-time jobs for residents and skill training and other administrative assistance specifically for DWNP staff and some functional CBNRM-CBO members. The major topical issue discussed was the view that KTP management provided parttime jobs to only a small fraction of people in the community, leaving ma ny youth loitering in the village with no jobs. In addition, the part-time jobs were reported to be seasonal and available only for a period of 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, all local representatives complained resentfully of a lack of equal sharing of Park benefits, indicating that even the seasonal job opportunities created were allocated in favor of South African citizens. Overall, KTP has not played a significant role in assisting adjacent local communities with tourism-related developments. Negative responses highlighted collective views that KTP does not offer any community development ecotourism progr ams or projects. Thus, there was no parkcommunity tourism project to benefit commun ities. A disappointing observation highlighted by the local participants was about unfair treatment of communitie s surrounding KTP. They noted that two neighboring communities on the South Af rican side of KTP, Khomani San and Mier seem to have collaborated with KTP authority /management and ventured into an ecotourismrelated commerce. These communities are engaged in a joint venture part nership with a private operator for the !Xaus community-owned eco-lo dge, which is located on their tribal lands bordering KTP (SANP & DWNP, 2008; Schoon, 2008). Thus, on the side of Botswana, community power and control over Park-based tourism and conser vation development are lacking (see Schoon, 2008). This calls for an urgent review of the KT P mandate with regards to relationships with adjacent local communities. There were more negative responses with re spect to local participation. An overwhelming majority of the representatives were pessimis tic about KTPs chief mission as a Transfrontier
219 protected area with shared ownership and manage ment. Almost all the local officials indicated that they were not recognized as part and parc el of KTP. They strongly expressed their concern that they have never been invited to particip ate in any decision-making and planning activities by the KTP Park Board or management. Generally there was a lack of power (political will) to participate effectively in all KTP activities, as th e local officials are never informed. Almost all local representatives revealed that they were rare ly, if ever, invited to management meetings at KTP. However, it is important to note that in Botswana, protected areas are under the sole power of the national government (GOB, 1987; 1992). It is also important to note that KTP appears to operate contrary to one of its important goals of ensuring local involvement in conservation activities, which were earmarked to generate econo mic benefits to both countries, especially to the local communities adjacent to the Park (SANP & DWNP, 1997, p. 3). Thus, top-down decision making by the government has restricted lo cal peoples access to KTP and denied them opportunities to participate in the park-related management programs. Similarly, Schoon (2008) found that local communities living in the vicinity of KTP have not derive d tangible benefits, and recommended changes that will recognize that th ey too are part of the Park. Even though the majority of the representatives expressed negative attitudes towards the current KTP management and the Transboundary concept due to lack of in volvement in the planning and management of Park-based tourism, they still expressed posit ive perceptions and str ong support for communitybased ecotourism development in th e area. However, it seems that the lack of participation in KTP activities by adjacent local communities has ignited resentful behavior and distrust of the South African Park staff. The present study has revealed that an overwhelming number of repres entatives were very knowledgeable about KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Further probing of the concept of TFP and the
220 idea of co-management led to a consensus a nd appreciation of the governments idea of converting GNP into a shared resource, emphasi zing that the move was treasured by the public sector stakeholders. However, th ere was an overall uncertainty, an indication that the designation of GNP and KGNP into a TFP between the two g overnments generated unfavorable conditions to adjacent local people, local authorities and village leaders. Opinions regarding the current KTP management varied across local and national pa rticipants. Nearly all local representatives indicated an imbalance with regards to resi dents collaboration a nd partnership in KTP conservation-related projects and the general Park management act ivities. The contentions or challenges included: land owners hip and control, huma n-wildlife interactions perceptions about communication with Park authorities/management, lack of transparency with respect to KTP activities, and inequality and favoritism with rega rds to Park benefits sharing (especially jobs). The results indicate that the current management approaches of KTP as a Transfrontier protected area failed to endorse and address KTP as a Transfrontier Park. In fact, the issues conflict with the goals and missions of Transboundary and Peace Parks (see SANP & DWNP, 1997; Peace Park Foundation, 2009). For issues of shared resource management only a handful of bot h local and national participants noted that KTP was beneficial be cause it has strengthened peace and cooperation between Botswana and South African wildlife de partments/governments. There was a general appreciation with regard s to the transboundary status of KT P due to some improvement in comanagement of park resources (m ainly wildlife). It can be concl uded that KTP as a Transfrontier Park has performed marginally better in terms of wildlife management co sts (especially problem animal control and translocation) and skills transfer (DWNP and CBOs members) including free movement of people and animals between the two parks.
221 With regards to general conservation, a subs tantial number of the respondents reported that poaching or illegal hunting of wild animals has been si gnificantly reduced, especially in communities with CBNRM-CBOs, such as Ncaa ng, Ukhwi and Zutshwa (Kgalagadi north) and Khawa (Kgalagadi south). Illegal hunting and unsustainable util ization of the general natural resources was reported to have b een high before the park was conve rted into a Transfrontier (B. Pelekekae, personal communication, Novemb er 18, 2008). Thus, most communities with CBNRM-CBOs, such as Khawa, Zutshwa, Ukhwi and Ncaang, have better opportunities for lowskill employment, skill training, cash and meat shar ing, because they were reported to be involved in a joint venture partners hip with a private safari operator. It is in these areas where individual members were engaged in daily policing of po achers that less poaching had been recorded. Furthermore, nearly all representatives rega rded CBNRM as a robust approach for wildlife conservation which has contributed considerably to resource c onservation in the region. In contrast, a few of the representatives indi cated that some parts of KTP were unmarked or had no boundary fencing7, and that this has led to human-wildlife conflicts, especially in farms situated in close proximity to the KTP fence. Pred ators such as lions, leop ards and wild dogs were reported to be a menace to nearby farms as they escape from KTP into farm areas and villages to attack and kill livestock. The repr esentatives argued that farmer s who were attacked or whose properties were damaged by wild animals were not able to secure immediate help, as wildlife officers dealing with problem animal control we re stationed in Tsabong and Hukuntsi, very far from villages and farm areas. The results of this study are remarkably similar to those of several studies conducted in Africa and in developing countries in other parts of the world (Alexander, 2000; Bauer, 2003; Brandon, 2007; Mordi, 1987; Mugisha, 2002; Newmark et al., 1993; 7 The Botswana section of KTP is partially fenced an d nearby cattleposts are separated by the fencing (SANP & DWNP, 1997).
222 Newmark et al., 1994; Walpole & Goodwin, 2001). Human-wildlife conflicts have been noted as a challenge to local communities on both side s of KTP (South Africa and Botswana) (See Schoon, 2008). Thus, there was common agreement th at wildlife policy and regulation and other conservation strategies associated with manage ment of KTP should be reviewed to benefit adjacent communities and resources. The Botswana side of unfenced KTP is surr ounded by WMAs (see Figure 3-1). However, this study found some negative responses about KTP and buffer zones or WMAs. A substantial number of local representatives expressed concern about land ow nership and control in the KTP area. Major challenges mentioned were essentia lly about resource use competition and conflicts over buffer zones around KTP. Results from half of the sampled local representatives indicated that local farmers needed more land and theref ore demanded reduction of WMAs to make more land available for livestock grazing. A sm all number of communities with CBNRM-CBOs favored WMAs, because they benefitted from sa fari-based tourism. An official from the Kgalagadi Land Board indicated that, in Kgalagadi district alone, 39% of tribal land was designated as WMAs (Figure 1-3). This is a contentious issue among local communities, especially those whose cattle posts were located on the border with KTP and CBOs with a private safari operator (Appendix B). At the time of st udy, the land issue had been handed over to the Department of Land Board in Tsabong. Based on information from N. Mothobi (personal communication, December 4, 2008), it was indicate d that some discussions were on-going regarding the possible reduction of some parts of WMAs to give way for agricultural activities (see appendix A and B). In addition, an overwhelming majority of lo cal representatives (as opposed to national leaders) worry about inadequate working relationships and la ck of collaboration with KTP
223 authority. They believed that the barriers to collaboration and partnerships in management activities have stemmed from lack of communication, limite d knowledge about PAs management protocol, lack of financial resources, and lim ited skills and information-sharing among local leaders and PA authorities. The resu lts of this study are similar to those of other studies that have been conducted in Uganda (Lepp, 2004; M ugisha, 2002), South Africa (Jones, 2005; Schoon, 2008), Kenya (Himberg, 2006; Kideghesho et al ., 2007), Zambia (Himoonde, 2007), and in other developing countries (see Allendorf, 2007; Cole, 2006). For example, Cole (2006) discovered that in the Wogo and Bena villages in Indonesia, a lack of full participation by resident communities in tourism development was due to inadequate knowledge, and lack of confidence, skills, and capital, as well as minimal or no local empowerme nt. In the present study, the majority of the local participants resented the behavior of the KTP management staff or authority for not sharing information or collaborating with local leaders (e. g., chiefs). Thus, the local representatives harshly indicated the need for change, in which they will be allowed an opportunity to become part of the park management or have representation on the KTP Park Board. All local participants, especially village chiefs and h eadmen, indicated the importance of communication regarding the KTP management progress, either by media or reports. It appeared as if none of the local chiefs knew what wa s going on at the Park. Also, there was common agreement among the pub lic sector officials, especially the national representatives that local people should be empowered and be involved in the planning and development of the Park. They retorted that community empowerment was clearly stated in the CBNRM policy of 2007 and in the Botswana National Ecotourism Strategy of 2003, yet initiatives have not been made with regards to Kgalagadi communities. Other studies in the Southern African region and other parts of the world have highlighted problems associated with
224 not recognizing local people as pa rt of conservation of PAs. Thus, recommendations have been made to empower leadership and communities and to include them in the future planning of sustainable projects at PAs (Allendorf, 2007; Child, 1995; Infiel d, 1988; Newmark, et al., 1993). Child (2004) argued that local people should be gi ven power and opportunities to participate in conservation-related activities if they are to benefit from their own resources. Also, the importance of allowing adjacent local communities to participate in the management of parks has been emphasized (Himoonde, 2007; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008; Timothy, 1999; Tosun, 2006). Collectively, the representatives indicated the urgent need for change with regards to the KTP management approach. Critical issues br ought forth by the overw helming majority of participants included the need fo r improved communication in all ma tters that relate to KTP and local residents (see Bruyere et al., 2009). At the time of fiel dwork, all local representatives evaluated communication be tween the local people and KTP mana gement as nonexistent. In all, there was unanimous agreement among local repr esentatives that a member of the community should be allowed to sit on the KTP Park Board. In order to reverse the situation, it is important that the national officials devise a better strategy to improve communication with local leadership, so that there will be shared know ledge with respect to policies that will guide KTP management. There were no developmental initiatives or pr ograms that involved adjacent communities in the co-management and collaborative activitie s and planning with respect to KTP as a Transfrontier Park. The local communities did no t have representatives on the KTP Management Board. Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Re gulation (2000) has noted the importance of having Local Advisory Committees (LACOMs) for all Botswana PAs to act as mouth pieces for communities flanking the PAs in Botswana. For example, LACOMs were created to advise on PA management and to provide a forum for communi cation, conflict resolutio n and consensus-based
225 decision-making for local stakeholders (Thakadu, 2002). But none of local representatives and only some nationals knew if LACOMs existed or we re ever created. Howeve r, it was reported that LACOMs were created and are ope rational at Chobe National Park and Makgadikgadi and Nxai National Parks in northern Botswana. Furthermore, special LACOM meetings are held quarterly with local stakeholders to inform them of pr oject progress at these PAs (G. Masunga, personal communication, October 23, 2009). Cultural heritage: This present study discovered inte resting findings about cultural heritage resources at the research site. These findings are consistent with previous research in the area (CSIR, 2002; Moswete et al., 2009b; Richar ds, 2007). All public sect or representatives demonstrated high knowledge of the importan ce of cultural resources for tourism. An overwhelming majority of the public sector repr esentatives were conversant that Kgalagadi was endowed with a wealth of cultu ral heritage resources (Chanda et al., 2005; Moswete et al., 2009b). Specifically, almost all highlighted the availability of both tangible and intangible resources in and around KTP, for example, Roopuits cultural lands cape inside KTP (Figure 5-3). However, the participants were quick to indicate that a lack of financial capital in the community has hindered them from utilizing the resources for tourism business. As indicated in the study there are many talented people in the community (ri tual practices, artists, ha ndicraft, skin tanning, bone and wood carvers, traditiona l dancers, wilderness trekking). According to the Botswana CBNRM strategy, CBNRM stakeholders should s upport the efforts of communities to maximize benefits from the exploitation of traditional knowledge of practical uses of natural [and cultural] resources, including medicinal properties and ethno botany. (GOB, 2007, p.19). This study points to a limited appreciation of Kgalagadi cultur al richness by the government which has led to low involvement in community development as far as southwestern region is concerned. The
226 study suggests that a number of opportunities exist for CBE and cu ltural heritage management for Kgalagadi region of Botswana in terms of ecotourism business potential and destination development. Stakeholder Perspectives: Integration This part of the study presents stakeholder perspectives on the poten tial f or ecotourism, support for CBE development and for KTP as a Tr ansfrontier Park. Data from two stakeholder groups (residents and public sector) were examined, integrated a nd conclusions were formulated. The objective of this study was to examine issues related to ecotourism and/or community-based ecotourism development in local communities adjacent to KTP. Also, it was considered essential to conduct this type of study in order to identif y factors that contribute toward the sustainable management of KTP as a transboundary resource. The results of the present study will be of assistance towards PA manageme nt, policy reviews, effective planning of CBE projects and government aided community conservati on programs associated with KTP. This study has generated essential insights into the perspectives of tw o stakeholder groups with regards to support for CBE development and for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Differences and similarities in perspectives between the tw o stakeholder groups were evident. Collectively, the two groups were generally positive about ecotourism and support for CBE development in their communities. Also, there was a strong support for KTP as a Tran sfrontier area in view of the general conservation of park resources. The stakeholder groups showed positive attit udes and perceptions a bout CBE development in the community. The positive outlook for CBE was founded on the notion that Kgalagadi region is a unique tourist destination with resources that are mostly unexploited and/or underdeveloped for ecotourism business. Support for the ecotour ism and/or CBE industry was strong among the two stakeholder groups. They both expressed hi gh aspirations for CBE development partly
227 because studies in the area have found that there were shortages of alternative economic livelihoods, and that people were generally very poor (Arntzen, 2001; Ar ntzen, 2003; Chanda et al., 2005; Moswete et al., 2009b; Totolo & Chanda 2003). By and large, CBE was likened to and perceived as an economic tool, especially with regards to employment and income. Specifically, the two stakeholder groups opi ned that CBE development would lead to the creation of employment opportunities, collective income, t ourist revenue, shops and better road and telecommunication networks. Ecotou rism and/or CBE were highly re garded in the region for the perceived potential to conserve resources. Specifically highlight ed were the unique cultural and natural landscape, the unique architecture of the San/Basarwa and other ethnic groups, endemic desert fauna and flora, unique customs and practices, rich history and anthropological and archaeological resources (Figure 5-3), serenity and friendly local communities. These special characteristics of the Kgalagadi region were also documented in previous studies (see Chanda et al., 2005; CSIR, 2002; Hitchcock, 1991; 1997; Johnson, 1996; Moswete et al., 2009b). Both stakeholder groups argued strongly that the Kgalagadi region was rich in cultural heritage resources that were unexploited for ecotourism and CBE development (see Chanda et al., 2005; CSIR, 2002; Johnson, 1996; Moswete et al., 2009) There was an indication that lack of financial resources and skills and/or formal trai ning was a deterrent to venturing into heritage identification and management in the area. Some cultural heritage sites were already identified by villages and earmarked (see Figure 5-4) fo r further development upon securing monetory resources and permission from Department of Museum (S. Esterhuizen, personal communication, November 29, 2008). The two stakeholder groups drew attention to the disparity in terms of low tourism activity and inadequate infrastructure for ecotourism de velopment on the Botswana side of KTP. There
228 was an indication of the need for and value of CBE development in the community and inside KTP but the groups appeared to be indiscrimi nate in the forms of tourism and/or CBE developments that they supported. Only a very small fraction of both groups expressed concern with respect to the sustainability of tourism projects. However, their views can be questioned based on their level of understa nding of sustainable tourism (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Cottrell et al., 2008; Mckercher & du Cros, 2002; Tosun, 1998) a nd support for sustainability for ecotourism development (Vincent & Thompson, 2002) in and around KTP. Hence thei r collective mental picture of increased tourism facilities in KTP seemed to be incompatible with ecotourism principles (Eagles et al., 2002; Fennel, 2003; Honey, 1999) and su stainable tourism development (Eagles et al., 2002; Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Harris, Griffin, & Williams, 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999). Based on the overall findings of the study, these results warrant the need for capacity building for members of the commun ities adjacent to KTP and local leaders so that they will not accommodate just any type of ecotourism de velopment, but will become cautious and knowledgeable about the associated developmen tal impacts (Eagles et al., 2002; Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Briedenhann & Wickens, 2007; Ha rris et al., 2002; Murphy, 1985; Tosun, 1998). All stakeholders expressed concern over lack of fairness and equity in the distribution of park-based benefits, esp ecially employment. Both stakeholder cohorts indicated that management power and control with respect to jobs in KTP we re vested within South Africa Park authority and therefore few local residents were hired. Of the resident stakeholder co hort, only 51.5% agreed that KTP provided jobs to people in the community, while the local public sector stakeholders felt that there was discrimination in hiring at KTP, and that favoritism was skewed to citizens of South Africa. These claims have created aver sion between South Africa KTP management and adjacent communities and the local authority. The lo cal public sector representatives criticized
229 KTP management and authority for failing to ensure equa l distribution of jobs and fair hiring. The dissatisfaction between local people and KTP seemed to have been exacerbated by a high incidence of unemployment and the dependence on government welfare support programs. Also, it appeared as if a lack of understanding of th e PA management could have added to confusion within communities. Thus, there is a need to cr eate more job opportunities in and around KTP as well as to increase the recruitment of adjacent local communities. A win-win situation for local communities and the KTP authority will help towards improved conservation and CBE programs. Naughton-Treves (2001) and Weladji & Tchamba ( 2003) argued for adequate consultation with communities and local leaders, and support for equal sharing a nd distribution of Park-based benefits to all stakeholders. Also, slightly more than half of the sampled residents and an overwhelming majority of the public sector stakeholder group indicated that KTP did not provide opportunities for community development projects. However, this finding was not expected as one of the objectives of the creation of KTP as a Transfrontier Park was the need to increase awaren ess about the importance of the Park (KTP) among local communities, and to ensure that local communities understood the role that wildlife and other natu ral resources can play in impr oving their living standards (SANP & DWNP, 1997; 1999). It was evident that KTP had not established co mmunity projects for adjacent local people at the time of this study. In addition, there was a general agreement that revenue from community tourism and KTP-based tourism did not benefit many individuals in the community. However, both groups indicated that tourism was benefiting South Africa and local people who owned tourism-related businesses, such as gasoline stations or shops. However, the national public sector group was know ledgeable that tourism in th e South African side of KTP was privatized, and the Park is managed by SANP which is a parastatal organization, while the
230 Botswana side of KTP is managed by DWNP which is government-run. Hence, there is very little tourism activity or benefits for adjacent commun ities and the government. Previous studies have also shown mixed success rates in revenue-sha ring from PA-based projects in developing countries. For instance, Archabald & Naughton -Trevess (2001), study found that park-based tourism revenue was shared equally among lo cal communities surrounding the three PAs in Uganda, and there were reports of improved attitude s toward PAs due to benefits. A lack of equal sharing of benefits from protected areas has be en reported in most communities in rural Africa (Cottrell et al., 2008; Ferrei ra, 2004; Lepp, 2007; Mutandwa & Ga dzirayi, 2007; Mbaiwa, 2007; Manwa, 2003; Meskell, 2005; Peters, 1999; Schoon, 2008; Suich, 2005). However, the results of the present study were not expected since KTP is th e first formally declared TransFrontier Park in Southern Africa and therefore woul d be expected to be a good example or a model that could be emulated by PA authorities in the regi on and beyond (see Child, 2004; Schoon, 2008; Suich, 2005; 2008). It is noteworthy that KTP bottomup transfrontier conservation would have contributed to a better co-management, especia lly one that involves adjacent local communities. The findings of this study can help towards reawak ening of KTP plan by all stakeholders that are associated with KTP and to collectiv ely evaluate its progress since 1997. Another interesting finding wa s all stakeholders were know ledgeable about why GNP and KGNP were amalgamated into a Transfrontier Park. The majority of the residents (75.9%) and an overwhelming number of the public sector representatives (12 out of 13) indicated that KTP was created for conservation of wild life and plant resources. This was an encouraging result because all participants knew why GNP was called Transfrontier. They were all aware of the fact that the new status of KTP has brought changes with respect to free movement of people and animals.
231 There were diverse and differing perceptio ns and attitudes with regards to KTP management and support for KTP as a Transfr ontier Park among stakeholder groups. Both stakeholder groups indicated str ong support for protection of KTP as a conservation area. Almost all the public sector stakeholder group talked w ith pride about KTP belonging to the local people. Hence; there was an overall positive relationshi p and support for it. However, variations in opinions surfaced regarding stakeholders support for the current management staff at KTP. An overwhelming number of the public sector stakeholders (mainly local officials) opposed and/or did not favor the current KTP management staff, while 21% of the residents opposed KTP as a Transfrontier Area and 16% opposed the current ma nagement staff. The majority of the public sector group, especially the local representativ es were not supportive of the regulations and guidelines of KTP. Although there were few individuals who did not support KTP as a Transboundary Park they still show ed support unlike the local public sector stakeholders. Lack of communication between Park management staff, local communities a nd local leaders was a serious concern that created distrust between local people and KTP authority. In a similar vein, Sorongwa (1999) discove red that mistrust emerged between local residents and PA authority due to a lack of c onsultation and involvement on matters of wildlife conservation initiatives in Tanzania. In th is present study, the challenges faced by both stakeholders (especially local representatives a nd residents) is on the oppos ing side of the Peace Parks Foundations goal of creating peace and harm ony between internationally shared resources and poverty reduction in communities adjacent to PAs (Peace Parks, 2003). In addition, an overwhelming majority of the lo cal public sector group differed w ith their national counterparts that there was lack of transpar ency and accountability regarding KTP staff. On the whole, both
232 stakeholder cohorts expressed support for KTP even though they indicated negative attitudes toward management staff at KTP (see Infiel d, 1988, Mordi, 1987; Parry & Campbell, 1992). There was also an emphasis on the call for ch ange as the local officials indicated the importance of information sharing and transparency with regards to activities that occur in and around KTP. Recommendations have been made that the concept of PAs must be expanded to include conserved areas that build on local rights, knowledge, and inst itutional structures PAs should do no harm to local people and what ever they should seek [to] do good (Roe & Hollands, 2004, p. 1). The results suggest that the formation of the Transboundary Park may have done more harm than good to adjacent communities. The challenge is to ensure that all KTP stakeholders are equally involved and informed so that they can work collectively. Strategies for resolving differences and distrust over KTP mana gement between the stakeholders (the Park authority, local and nationa l stakeholders and residents) should be formulated and implemented. All stakeholders, especia lly, local leaders and residents should be fully involved so that their views are heard. There is a need to strengthen relationships and communi cation between the Park management and local authority and communities. Residents seem to have no knowledge or a poor understanding of KTP as a Transboundary area, as most of them expressed support of KTP but indicated that they were not benefiting. Local residents need to be empowered through education to become part of KTP management a nd participate in conservation-related programs. Similar to previous studies, this study employed stakeholder theory (Byrd, 2004; 2008; Freeman, 1984; Miller, 2006; Mitchell et al., 1997; Nichol as, 2007; Walker, 1996; Wearing, 2001). With reference to stakeholder theory, this study took heed that the management and conservation of internationally shared resources can be complex (Bruyere et al., 2009; Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999). The management challenge becomes critical when there are
233 multiple stakeholders with varying degrees of po wer, legitimacy and vested interests (Byrd, 2003; 2007; Farrington, 1996; Freeman & Miles, 1997; Mitc hell et al., 1997). Local people are usually the powerless stakeholder group and stakeholder theory emphasizes their inclusion (Mulale, 2005). Thus, this study focused only on two prim ary groups the resident communities and public sector as protected area stakeholders, as too many groups can yield confusing outcomes (Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999). Hill & Jones (1992) have argued that stakeholder groups differ by the size of the stake they posses, while Mitchell et al. (19 97) stated that groups differ by level of power accrued in management. Thus, local residents were targeted for the study because they are usually the most negativelyimpacted by PA conservation, management and related developments (Bruyere et al., 2009; Byrd et al., 2008). Incorporating a better understanding of local residents general conservation attitudes into management structures improves local attitudes toward, and support fo r, PAs and ecotourism (Brandon & Wells, 1993; Castley et al., 2002; Castley, Patton, & Magome, 2009; Child, 2009; Suich, 2008; Stem et al., 2003). Public sector stakeholders often have different views from local residents with respect to natural resource management. They also possess a larger share of power in resource ownership and control (Byrd, 2007; Mitche ll et al. 1997; Mulale, 2005). The theoretical contribution of this study i nvolves the integration of ideas and opinions from local residents and the public sector stakeh older groups in the specific case of transboundary protected area. Overall results of this study suggest that stakeholder theory and/or stakeholder consultation is an important and e ffective tool that can be used to solicit views and opinions of various groups. This is evident from the result s of this study. As indicated by the proponents of stakeholder theory, different group s can have diverse and different opinions regarding managing a resource or for a proposed development. In this study, there was a degree of consensus among the
234 public sector representatives that KTPs manage ment was flawed as local residents were not consulted or involved. Also, both stakeholder groups indicated unf air sharing of Park benefits between Botswana and South African adjacent local communities. In addition, this study was able to identify discrepancies in the consultation process, which included a lack of concern over conservation of resources because of pe rceived CBE benefits when tourism is new to the area (Butler, 1980). Also, PA development is based on conservation principles, but the adjacent local communities we re more concerned with economic gains. This points to the importance of consulting local comm unities or all affected groups in the region to solicit their views before introduc ing a new development or policy. The application of stakeholder theory demonstrated that economic value creation and distribution of econo mic benefits to local communities have largely failed to eventuate in sp ite of the importance of these concepts in the creation of KTP as a Transfron tier Park. Therefore, a clear-cut conceptual and empirical understanding of KTP management and conserva tion programs is require d at both local and national levels. In addition, this present study has both academic and practical implications. Two conceptual models, each with five constructs, were formulated. First, key factors that influence support for CBE development in a community where tourism is in its early stage of development were explored. The main predictors of s upport were: perception about CBE, conservation attitudes, community concern and length of residence. Secondly, pr edictors that influence support for KTP as a Transfrontier protected area were identified as: conservation attitudes, community concern, perception about CBE, distance/proximity, education level and gende r. It is worthy of note that there are relatively few studies that em pirically examined relati onships by incorporating these constructs to evaluate support for CBE or Transboundary developments in a desert setting
235 of a developing country in Africa. These empirical results exte nd our understanding of stakeholder perceptions about CBE, support for CBE development and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Based on the findings of th is study, it is important that the factors that influence support for CBE development and for KTP as a Transfrontier Park be further re-studied and applied in other divers e geographical locations. For managerial implications, PAs managers, pol icy makers, natural and cultural heritage resource managers, tourism developers and planne rs can apply this conceptual model in various stages of Park-based ecotourism development and for any protected area (e g., world heritage site or Nature Park) to identify factors that would ne ed to be addressed in case of policy or program review or for an introduction and implementation of a new community-related conservation initiative. It is essential that natural and cu ltural heritage resource managers, policy makers, tourism planners and developers understand local peoples values and aspirations regarding parkbased ecotourism development and associ ated conservation activity of PAs. Conclusion and Recommendation Conclusion Notwithstanding stakeholders high regard for KTP as a Transboundary protected area, this study discovered two m ajor policy concerns, namely a low level of local participation in park activities and a lack of collabo ration between KTP management and residents. The lack of participation in KTP activities has denied comm unities the opportunity to benefit and local residents obtained only minimal benefits from the KTP. Child (2009), Tosun (2006) and Twyman (2000) emphasized the need for and importance of local participation in natural resource conservation and management projects, while Aa s et al. (2005), Jamal & Getz (1995), Ladkin & Bertramini (2002), and Little, (1994) contended that local partic ipation can foster stakeholder collaboration, and ultimately lead to greater benefits. Even though local residents (including local
236 leaders) were left out of all park activities, they still held very strong general conservation attitudes to and support for KT P as a Transboundary area. In the case of KTP, power over the management of resources still lies predominantly in the hands of a major influential stakeholder (Mitchell et al., 1997; Mulale, 2005) the government. This top-down approach disempowers the loca l communities (see Cole, 2006; Fraser et al., 2006; Sofield, 2003). Devolution of authority and resp onsibility has not occurred at KTP except on paper (see SANP & DWNP, 1997; 1999). As generall y indicated, KTP as a Transfrontier area situated within the Kgalagadi community stands out as or sits like a diamond beyond the control of the general local communities. Thus, the government has to ensure that adjacent local communities understand the principles of shared resource management and their roles in order to identify with KTP not just emotionally a nd spiritually but physically (see Schoon, 2008). Based on the overall results, ther e is a high level of distrust and suspicion between South African KTP Management and adja cent local people and local leader s on the Botswana side with regards to shared Park benefits (distribution of jobs). Lack of communication between local communities and KTP Management has exacerbated th e situation. Thus, it is the responsibility of the government of Botswana to ensure that lo cal communities understand their functions and roles regarding KTP management. Overall, this present study revealed various factors that influence perceptions about ecotourism and thereby influence support for CBE development, and support for KTP as a Transfrontier Park. Literature on tourism development in Botswana is limited, thus this study will stimulate further research on residents perceptions and attitudes toward PAs in order to aid policy makers, park management, tourism deve lopers and academics in their review and formulation of PA-related ecot ourism development strategies, and conservation policies.
237 There was a common belief that local comm unities should be recognized by the two governments, with special reference to the Na tional Park Board (S outh Africa) and DWNP (Botswana), and that local comm unities should be given opportunities to become a part of KTP management. More local than national represen tatives emphasized their awareness that local residents were willing to share in the management of KTP. Thus, collaborative actions could lead to improved conservation and CBE development successes. Also, management strategies and policies ought to be based on th e common objectives of resource managers and adjacent local communities as this would benefit Park resources and local people. Equitable distribution of management projects and park benefits to local people should be emphasized so that KTP objectives are answered and resi dents needs are fulfilled. Protected-area based ecotourism activities could benefit local people living adjacent to KTP if conservation and tourism activities were well-planned, executed, and monitored and included local residents as representa tives in the management (Cus ack & Dixon, 2006; Ferreira, 2004; Jones, 2005; Suich, et al., 2005; Suich, 2008). In a related study in Zambia, Himoonde (2007) discovered that local residents at Kasanka National Park derived benefits from park-based ecotourism that included employment, income a nd social services (health center, community school). However, the benefits accrued for the Kafinda Community Resource Board and did not reach individual residents. Similarly, Jones ( 2005) found that the Mbangweni community in Kwa Zulu-Natal experienced decreased access to social, natural and econom ic benefits as a result of the creation of the Lobombo Tran sfrontier Conservation Area. Accordingly, recommendations have been made to the effect that increased local participation in community-based ecotourism development would guarantee equal sharing of benefits (Brennan & Allen, 2001; Cater, 1993; Cock & Fueller, 2000; Cusack & Dixon, 2006; Fennell, 2003; Lindberg & et al., 1996; Little,
238 1994; Relly, 2008; Rozemeijer, 2008; Scheyve ns, 1999; Spenceley, 2008; Woodwood, 1997). Ecotourism resources (culture and nature) were identified as a foundation for rural Kgalagadi. However, government should provide basic infra structure to attract tourism investors and developers in the Kalahari region. There is a need to address the problem of unemployment in rural areas, particularly in Kgalagadi region especi ally as it relates to KTP as a Transfrontier Park. One of the critical values of Transboundary C onservation Areas is to provide employment to adjacent local communities. However, this study revealed that only a very small fraction of residents has been involved in part-time or seasonal employment at KTP. Overall, the findings of the present study came as a surprise because Botswanas PA policy and regulations were premised on the idea of protected area management that would benefit from mutual participatory approach as opposed to conventional practice (GOB, 2007; Thakadu, 2002). However, in the case of KTP this idea seems to have been ignored. In her study on ecotourism in Kenyas Taita Tavena (Chawia8), Himberg (2006) discovere d that local community environmental committees were created to allow local residents full partic ipation in management and sustainable utilization of fore st resources. Local residents ha d developed pride and sense of ownership of their PAs and the associated forest resources. A similar practice could be emulated for KTP communities with the help of government of Botswana and South Africa as per Peace Parks Foundation mandate of cooperation and inclusion rather th an exclusion. Cooperation and collaboration among different stakeholders in activities that involve them is vital. Jamal (1994) noted that, collaboration may be suitable to manage turbulent planning domains at the international, regional and loca l level (p. 200). Conc erns about inadequate collaboration between residents and PA management have been emphasized especially by local 8 Chawia Community Environmental Committee has a tree nu rsery where they grow trees; other activities include bee-keeping and butterfly farming enterprise.
239 representatives. In this study local representatives were not involved in activities that occurred at KTP, denying them opportunities to stay informed about the Park. Collaboration is encouraged in Transboundary protected areas as strategies to en sure involvement of multiple stakeholders that all have a stake in the planning and management of shared resource (Byrd, 2003; 2008; Cusack & Dixon, 2006; Jamal & Getz, 1995; Nicholas, 2007) However, collaboration between local communities (including local leaders) and Park Authority/management does not exist at KTP. This has resulted in increased suspicion of ownership of KTP and distrust between KTP management (South Africa) and adja cent local communities (Botswana). The findings of this study are not unique to KTP as a Trans frontier area and the Kgalagadi region, as it is supported by previ ous studies that discovered cha llenges of collaboration among stakeholder groups, especially where there had b een misrepresentation of some groups, lack of information-sharing and transparency (Bre nnan & Allen, 2001; Freeman, 1984; Miller, 2006; Mulale, 2005; Rozemeijer, 2009; Spenceley, 2008; WWF, 2001). A lack of representation of all stakeholder groups, especially local people in decision-making with re spect to conservationecotourism related developments has been highlight ed (Lai & Nepal, 2006; Little, 1994; Timothy, 1999). Also, Drumm & Moore (2002) ar gued that it is essential to invo lve all stakeholders that exist in a region in all matters that deal with planning, deve lopment, and conservation and utilization of resources that aff ect them. The model of KTP as a Transfrontier Park seemed to be more conservation-oriented than community-o riented (see Schoon, 2008). An integration of the two has been recommended in the literature of protected area management (Child, 2004; Hanks, 2003; Hulme & Murphree, 2001; Mbile et al., 2006; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Suich et al., 2009; WWF, 2001).
240 Policy Recommendations Transfrontier protected area au thorities such as SANP (South Africa) and DWNP (Botswana) need to recogni ze the importance of stakeholder cooperation and improved communication in all matters of management and conservation of the Transboundary Park (KTP). It is important that the Park (KTP) authority and management create collaboration programs with local communities especially those living on the fringes of the park to enhance management and conservation of KTP as a Transboundary protected area. There is a need to reassess the co-managemen t ideals in the general conservation of KTP and local communities. Therefore, it is essential to formulate and have well documented guidelines that incorporate views of KTP authority and adjacent local communities to guide community conservation projects at KTP. Co-management between the two governments (Botswana and South Africa) and adjacent local people needs to be revisited to ensu re understanding of the goals of natural and cultural heritage conservation and ma nagement with regards to KTP. Park-people policy guidelines need to be formulated that will define roles of local stakeholders, especially local leaders, polit ical leaders and adjacent local communities in Transboundary protected area activ ities and programs. Greater re sidents participation and involvement in decision making, planning and development about KTP as a Transfrontier Park is essential if people are to derive benefits. A revised KTP management plan, with a cl ear-cut and comprehensive community-based ecotourism strategy should be developed. This should be followed by an appropriate implementation of the reviewed management plan, and should ensure inclusion of all stakeholders, particularly adjacent local commun ities to ensure that th ey identify with the Park and benefit from it. Increased capacity building and formal educa tion about conservation, ecotourism enterprise development and resource management for resi dents, local leaders (especially village chiefs) and other stakeholder gr oups should be encouraged so th at all stakeholders can work cooperatively towards the same goal for sustai nable tourism development. Ensuring that residents and local leaders are informed a bout CBE and other related KTP conservation activities could trigger interest and willingn ess to try or venture into new livelihood activities. As was emphasized by local leaders, it is worthwhile to in clude citizens in the KTP management and decision making board so that they also have voice. Based on common agreement about the need for ecotourism development in and around KTP, the government should provide more faciliti es and infrastructure such as bitumen and gravel roads that connect villages and at tractions, improved telecommunication network (telefax and cellular phones), ba nking facilities and other necessary amenities that will be used by local residents and vis itors alike. Improved superstr uctures (e.g., banking facilities) will attract more investments in the area, create job opportunities and increase the buying power of local communities.
241 The government should develop mechanisms to ensure greater equity in the KTP-based benefits (employment) to adjacent communities both in Botswana and South Africa. There is a need to create awareness of cons ervation and preservation of cultural heritage resources and to teach and encourage local communities to identify resources in their region. In addition, there is a need to find wa ys in which they can benefit from CBE and cultural heritage activities. Local leaders could be taken on a tour of operational and successful cultural heritage sites in other parts of the country such as Trail Blazers a San/Basarwa cultural tourism village/camp in Ghantsi district (Figure 5-4), Lepokole Hills CBO project (Bobirwa), Kgetsi-ya-Tsie community (CBO) project (Tswapong) to experience and learn. The government should devote funding to emba rk on a large scale cultural heritage resources inventory, mapping and documentation in the study area inco rporating the greater Kalahari region, and local reside nts, government and the University of Botswana research center all should collaborate in order that work is done to meet multiple stakholders interest. Limitations of the Study Although this study has provided valuable insi ght into understandi ng the factors that predict support for CBE developm ent and for KT P as a Transfrontier Park, there are some limitations. The study was limited by sampling only ni ne villages within the study area due to time, resource and spatial limitations. The Kgalagad i district is vast wi th very long distances between villages and settlements, and some roads ar e difficult to navigate due to deep desert sand. Also, the study was conducted during summer (October 2008 to January 2009) when the temperatures were very high, with blistering heat of the Kalahari Desert making it difficult to walk in and around the villages. Th erefore, the results may not be generalizable to the entire southwestern region. Also, only two stakeholder groups were st udied, even though ecotourism stakeholder groups are many and varied, especi ally in the case of Tranbounda ry protected area. Time and funding have limited the number of different stakeholder group to involve in the study. There are many factors that c ould influence the manner in wh ich an individual or a group may perceive CBE or the general tourism imp acts but, this study is lim ited to the specific
242 elements or variables only shown in the conceptual model (s). There are problems encountered when conducting an interview. As shared by Me rton & Kendall (1946), t here is no unambiguous definition of the right behavior for the intervie wer in the focused (or any other semi-structured) interview. cited in Ewe Flick p78). The successf ul carrying out of such interviews depends essentially on the interviews situation competence. Some of the interviews were conducted during November-December, when local people were preparing for the festive season, and also were getting ready to move to the fields fo r plowing. The possibility of dilemma due to interviewees limited time, and the researchers interest in information was observed. However, the advantage of this method is that the consis tent use of an interview guide increases the comparability of the data and that their structuration is increased as a result of the questions in the guide. Future Work This study was conducted in a region where tourism is at an early stage of development, and visitor numbers are low compared to other part s of the country. The area is remote and most tourism activities are nature/wilderness and culture-based. Thus, it is recommended that similar variables be studied in other geographical areas where tourism is at a different stage of development. A more rigorous qualitative study is needed of residents percep tion and attitudes in order to uncover deeper elements that influence re sidents support or opposition to KTP as a Transfrontier Park and support for CBE development. The scope of this study was limited to identifying factors that predict residents support for CBE development and for KTP as a Transfront ier Park, but did not identify, assess or address other salient elements that c ould influence support or opposition to CBE development or KTP as a Transboundary area. Further work is needed in which both closeended and open-ended questions are used for the residents stakeholder group. Structural equation modeling (SEM ) could be used for further analysis of the independent and dependent variables to test the validity of this study. It is suggested that future studies focus on assessing the attitudes of PA/KTP managers (government and private) South Africa and Botswana. With areas of conflict identified, measures can be design to rectify them.
243 Figure 5-1. Tourist campsite in side KTP (Botswana side) (P hotograph courtesy of Naomi Moswete, 2008) Figure 5-2. Handicraft of the San/Bushmen made from ostrich eggshells collected from Farms (Displayed in a craftshop, Ghantsi village) (Photograph courtesy of Naomi Moswete, 2008)
244 Figure 5-3. Cultural landscape and dwelling re mains at Roopuits, inside KTP (Botswana) (Photograph courtesy of Naomi Moswete, 2008) Figure 5-4. Trail Blazers San/Basarwa cultural camp near Ghanzi. (Photograph courtesy of Naomi Moswete, 2009)
245 APPENDIX A KGALAGADI DISTRICT WILDLI FE MANAGEMENT AREAS
246 APPENDIX B KHAWA LAND USE AND MANAGE MENT PLAN (KD 15)
247 APPENDIX C RESIDENT SURVEY INSTRUMENT
251 APPENDIX D PUBLIC SECTOR INTERVIEW GUIDE Interv iew: Site Location: Date: Time: am/pm Interviewee Name: Name of Organization: Job Title: Years at Current Job: Responsibilities: Age: Gender: Years at Current Residence: 1. What do you think of Kgalagadi Transfrontier Na tional Park (KTP) as a Transfrontier Park? 2. What are the major things you like about the KTP? 3. What are the major things you dont like about KTP? 4. What are your opinions about the current management of KTP? 5. What is the role of your organization in Co mmunity-Based Natural Resource Management programs? 6. What is your knowledge about Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE)? 7. What is the role of your orga nization in CBE development? 8. What CBE initiatives or projects are in practice in your area? 9. What are the accrued benefits for the commun ity from CBNRM and CBOs initiatives in your area? 10. What benefits does your community accrue from the KTP? 11. What is the potential for CBE development in your area? 12. CBNRM is the right appro ach for wildlife conservation Yes No Not sure 13. Give reasons _____________________________________________________________ Thank you for your participation
252 APPENDIX E INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
254 APPENDIX F RESEARCH PERMIT, BOTSWANA
256 LIST OF REFERENCES Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stak eholder collaboration and heritage m anagement. Annals of Tourism Research 32(1), 28-48. African Consulting Engineeers (2000). Tran s-Kgalagadi Development Corridor: Business Opportunity development. Prepared for Mi nistry of Commerce A nd Indutry. Botswana. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understandi ng attitudes and predic ting social behavior. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Akama, J. (1996). Western environmental va lues and nature-based tourism in Kenya. Tourism Management 17(8), 567-574. Alexander, S. (2000). Resident attitudes towa rds conservation and bl ack howler monkeys in Belize: the Community baboon sanctuary. Environmental Conservation 27(4), 341-350. Allendorf, T. D. (2007). Residents attitudes toward three protected areas in Southwestern Nepal. Biodiversity Conservation, 1 6, 2087-2102. Allendorf, T. D., Smith, J. L. D., & Anderson, D. H. (2007). Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning 82, 33-40. Allen, L. R., Long, P.T., Perdue, R. R., & Kies elbach, S. (1988). The impact of tourism development on residents perc eptions of community life. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 16-21. Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge. Amuquandoh, F. E., & Dei, L. A. (2007). Touris m development preferences among the residents of Lake Bosomtwe, Ghana. Geojounral 70, 173-183. Andereck, K., & Vogt, C.A. (2000). The relationshi p between residents at titudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research 39, 27-36. Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C, & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 32(4), 1056-1076. Andereck, K., & Jurowski, C. (2006). Tourism a nd quality of life. In G. Jennings & N. P. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism e xperiences (pp. 136-154). Boston, Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Andriotis, K. (2005). Community groups per ceptions of and preferences for tourism development: Evidence from Crete. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 29(1), 67-90.
257 Ap, J. (1992). Residents per ceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 19, 665690. Arai, S. (1996). Benefits of citizen particip ation in healthy community initiatives: Linking community development and empowerment. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 21, 25-44. Archabald, K., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2001). Tourism revenue sharing around national parks in western Uganda: Early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environmental Conservation 28(2), 135-149. Arjunana, M., Holmes, C., Puyravaud, J., & Da vidar, P. (2006). Do development initiatives influence local attitudes toward cons ervation? A case study from the KalakadMundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 79, 188-197. Arntzen, J, W. (2001). The impacts of governme nt policies on rangeland s conditions and rural livelihoods Global change and subsistence rangelands in Southern Africa., Working paper No. 4. Gaborone. Centre for Applied Research Arntzen, J. W., Molokomme, D. L., Terry, E. M. Moleele, N., Tshosa, & Mazambani, D. (2003) Main findings of the review of community -based natural resources management in Botswana. Occasional paper No. 14. Gaborone IUCN/SNV CBNRM support programme. Arntzen, J. W. (2003). An economi c view on wildlife management areas in Botswana. Occasional paper No.10. Gaborone. IUCN/SNV CBNRM support programme. Ashley, C., & Garland, E. (1994). Promoting community-based tourism development: Why, What and How? Research Discussion Paper No.4. Depa rtment of Environmen t Affairs; Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia. Ashley, C. (2000). The impacts of tourism on rural livelihoods: Namibian experience. Results of research presented in preliminary form for discussion and critical comment. Working paper 128, 1-31, accessed May 2007. www.odi.org.uk/nrp. Ashely, C., Boyd, C., & Goodwin (2000). Pro-poor tourism: Putting poverty at the heart of the tourism agenda. Natural Resource perspec tives, No. 51. London. Overseas Development institute. Ashley, C., & Jones, B. (2001). Joint ventures between communities and tourism investors: Experience in Southern Africa. International Journal of Tourism Research 3, 407-423. Ashley, C., & Roe, D. (2002). Making tourism wo rk for the poor: Strategies and challenges in southern Africa. Development Southern Africa 19(1), 6182. Ashley, C., & Elliot, P. (2003). Just Wildlife? Or a source of local development? Natural resource perspectives 85, 1-6. www.odi.org.uk/nrp, accessed June, 2008.
258 Atlhopheng, J., & Totolo, O. (1998). Environe mtal Issues in Botswana: Summary and conclusions. In J. Atlhopheng, C. Meleba tsi, E. Toteng, & O. Totolo (Eds.), Environmental Issues in Botswana: A handbook (pp. 1587-159). Gaborone, Lightbooks. Avila Foucat, V. S. (2002). Community based ma nagement moving towards sustainability, in Ventanilla, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ocean and Coastal Management 45(8), 511-529. Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of Social Research (9th ed.), Australia. Wadsworth. Banerjee, S. B. (2000). Whose land is it anyway? National interest, indige nous stakeholders, and colonial discourses. Organization and Environment, 13(1), 3-38. Banks, S. K. (2003). Tourism related impacts as perceived by three resi dent typology groups in San Pedro, Belize, Unpublished PhD dissertatio n, North Carolina State University, USA. Baral, N., & Heinen, T. (2007). Resource use, co nservation attitudes, management intervention and park people relations in the western Terai landscape of Nepal. Environmental Conservation 34(1), 64-72. Baral, N., Marc, J., & Stern, J. (2009). Looking back and looking ahead: Local empowerment and governance in the Annapurna Conservation Area Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 110. Barnes, J. J. (1995). Economic analysis of comm unity-based wildlife utilization initiatives in Botswana. Development Southern Africa 13 (3), 77-406. Barnes, J. I. (2001a). Economic returns and allocati on of resources in wildlife sector of Botswana. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 31(2 & 4), 141-153. Barnes, J. I. (2001b). Wildlife conservation and u tilization as complements to agriculture in Southern African development. DEA Pub lications Department, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 27, 1-20. Barnes, J. I. (2008). Community-based tourism and natural resource management in Namibia: Local and national economic impacts. In A. Sp enceley (Ed.), Responsible tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and develo pment (pp. 343-357) London. Earthscan. Bauer, H. (2003). Local perceptions of Wazha National Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30(2), 175-181. Baumgartner, T., & Jackson, A. (1999). Measurem ent for evaluation in physical education and exercise science. (6th ed.), Boston: W.C. Brown. Bass, S., Dalal-Clayton, B., & Pretty, J. (1995). Participation in strate gies for sustainable development. Environmental Planning Issues, 7. International institute for environment and development, London.
259 Belisle, F. J. & Hoy, D. R. (1980). The perceived impact of tourism by residents: A case study of Sata Marta, Columbia. Annals of Tourism research 7(1), 83-101. Bell, C. (1991). An overview of the photographic safari industry. In L. Pfotenhauer, (Ed.) Tourism in Botswana (pp. 210-222) Gaborone. Botswana society. Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social research methods: Qua litative and quantitative approaches. London, Sage. Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormic, P. J. (2002). Residents Perceptionof the cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 29(2), 303-319. Blackden, C. M., & Wodon, Q. (2006). (Eds.) Gender, time use and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank. Washington. Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical l ook at community-based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39-49. Boggs, L. (2004). Community-based natural resource management in the Okavango Delta. In C. Fabricuus & E. Koch (Eds.), Rights, resources and rural development: Community-based natural resource management in Southe rn Africa (pp.147-159). London. Earthsacan. Bolaane, M. (2004). The impact of game policy on the river san/bushmen of Botswana, Social Policy and Administration, 38(4), 399-417. Botswana Review (2003) Botswana review: Commerce & Industry (22nd ed.), Botswana export development & investment authority. Gaborone. Botswana. Botswana Review (2005). Botswana review: Commerce and Industry (25th ed.), Botswana Export Development and Investment Au thority. Gaborone. Botswana. Botswana Tourism Development Program (1998). Tour operators visitor survey. Ministry of Environement, Wildlife and Tourism. Gaborone. Botswana Tourism Development Program (1999) Botswana's market position and development potential: Results of the tour ope rator survey. Gaborone. Botswana. Botswana Tourism Development Program (2000). Botswana tourism master plan. final draft, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Tourism. Gaborone. Botswana Tourism Development Program (200 3). Botswana national ecotourism strategy. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Tourism. Gaborone. Botswana Tourism Board (2008). Botswana eco-tourism best practice manual. Gaborone. Discover LTD and Ecoplanet ltd. Boyd, S. W., & Timothy, D. J. (2001). Developing partnerships: Tools for interpretation and management. Tourism Recreation Research 26(1), 47-53.
260 Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Interpreation a nd sustainable tourism: potentials and pitfalls. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(2), 71-80. Brandon, K., & Wells, M. (1992). Planning for people and parks; Design dilemmas. World Development, 20, 557-570. Brandon, K. (1996). Ecotourism and conservation: A review of key issues. Washington, DC: World Bank. Brandon, A. (2007). The dual nature of parks: Attitudes of neighboring communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 34 (3), 236-245. Brandt, A. S. & Mohammed, O. Y. (1996). Starti ng from scratch: The past, present and future management of Somalias cultural heritage. In P. R. Schmidt, & R. J. McIntosh (Eds.), Plundering Africas past (pp. 250-259). Indian Univer sity Press, Bloomington. Brennan, F., & Allen, G. (2001). Community-bas ed ecotourism, social exclusion and the changing political economy of Kwa Zulu Natal, South Af rica. In D. Harrison(Ed.), Tourism and the Less Developed World: I ssues and case studie s (pp. 203-221). New York, CABI Publishing. Briedenhann, J., & Wickens, E. (2007). Developi ng cultural tourism in S outh Africa: Potentials and Pitfalls. In G. Ricards (Ed.), Cultural Tourism: Global and Lo cal perspectives, (pp. 69-90. New York, Haworth Hospitality Press. Brohman, J. (1996). New dire ctions in tourism for Th ird World development. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (1), 48-70. Brosius, J. P., & Russell, D. (2003). Conservation form above: an anth ropological perspective on Transboundary protected areas and ecoregional plannining. Journal of Suatinable Forest, 17(1&2), 39-65. Bruyere, B. L., Beh, A.W., & Lelengula, W. (2009). Differences in perceptions of communication, tourism benefits, and manageme nt issues in a protected area of rural Kenya. Environmental Management 43, 49-59. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2005). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A guide for social scientist. London. Routledge. Buckley, R. (1994). A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research 21, 661-669. Buckley, R. (2003). Case studies in ecotourism. CABI Pub. USA. Burns, G. L., & Howard, T. (2003). When w ildlife tourism goes wrong: A case study of stakeholder and management issues rega rding Dingoes on Fraser Island, Australia. Tourism Management 24, 699-712.
261 Burns, P., & Barrie, S (2005). "Race, space and our own piece of Africa: Doing good in Luphisi village? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(5), 468-485. Buswani, B., Setlhogile, T., Artnzen, J. & Potts, F. (2007). Best practices in Botswana for the Management of natural reources by comm unities. Occasional paper No. 17. Gaborone. IUCN/SNV CBNRM support programme. Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourism areas cycle of evaluation: implementations for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12. Butler, R.W. (1998). Sustainable tourism: Looking b ackwards in order to progress? In C. M. Hall, & A. A. Lew, (eds.), Sustainable touris m: Geographical perspectives (pp. 25-34). Addison-Wesley Longman, Harlow. Byrd, E. T. (2003). An analysis of variables that influence stakeholder participation and support for sustainable tourism development in rural North Carolin a, Unpublished PhD dissertation; North Carolina State University. USA. Byrd, E. T. (2004). Identifying tourism stake holder groups based on support for sustainable tourism development and participation in tour ism actvities. In F. D. Pineda, & C. A. Brebbia (Eds.), Sustainable tourism: Th e sustainable world (pp. 97-108). London: WIT Press. Byrd, E. T., & Cardenas, D. A. (2006, March). Elements of stakeholder support for tourism in rural communities: The case study of eastern North Carolina. Southeastern Travel & Tourism Research Association Reserach symposium. Sarasota, Florida. Byrd, E. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development, Tourism Review 62(2), 6-13. Byrd, E., Cardenas, D. A., & Greenwood, J. B. (2008). Factors of stake holders understanding of tourism: The case of eastern North Carolina. Tourism & Hospitality Research, 1-13. Byrd, E., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. G. (2 009). Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management 30, 693-703. Callaghan, K., & Chen, J. (2008). Revisiting the collinear data proble m. An assessment of estimator ill-conditioning in linear regres sion. Practical Asessessment, Research and Evaluation, 13(5). Retrieved on November 29, 2009 from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=13&n=5 Caldicott, J., & Fuller, D. (2005). The Concep t and relevance of ecotourism to indigenous econom ic and human development in remote Australian communitie s. Occasional Paper N0. 6. Centre for Enterprise Development Research Southern Cross University, Australia. Caldwell, L. (1996). Heritage tour ism: A tool for economic devel opment. In P. A. Wells (Ed.), Keys to the Marketplace: Problmes and Issu es in cultural and heritage tourism(pp. 125131). UK, Hisarlik Press.
262 Campbell, A. C. (1973). The National Park and Reserve system in Botswana. Biological Conservation 5(1), 7-14 Campbell, C. (1999). Ecotourism in rural developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 26, 534-553. Carmichael, B. A. (2006). Linking quality tourism experi ences, residents quality of lie, and quality experiences for tourists (pp. 114-135). In G. Jennings, & N. M. Nickerson, (Eds.). Quality tourism experiences. Boston. Elservier Butterworth Heinemann. Carrthurs, J. (2009). National Parks in South Af rica. In H. Suich, B. Child, & A. Spenceley (Eds.), Evolution and innovati on in wildlife conservation: Parks and game ranches to Transfrontier conservation areas (pp. 3550). London, Earthscan. Castley, J. G., Knight, M. H., Mills, M.G.L., & Thouless, C. (2002). Estimation of the lion (Panthera Leo) population in the southweste rn Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park using a capture-recapture survey, African Zoology, 37 (1), 27-34. Castley, G., Patton., & Magome, H. (2009). Making conventional park s relevant to all society: The case of SANparks. In H. Suich, B. Ch ild, & A. Spenceley (Eds.), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: Parks and game ranches to Transfrontier conservation areas (pp. 393-409). London, Earthscan. Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the third wo rld: Problems and prospects for sustainable development. Tourism Management 14(2), 85-90. Central Statistic Office (CSO) (1998). T ourism statistics. Gaborone. Botswana. Central Statistic Office (CSO) (2001). T ourism statistics. Gaborone. Botswana. Central Statistic Office (CSO) (2003). T ourism statistics. Gaborone. Botswana. Chanda, R., & Magole, L. (2001). Rangelands in th e context of subsisten ce livelihoods: The case of the Matsheng area, Kgalagadi north, Bots wana. Working paper, No.3, Global change and subsistence rangelands in southern Africa. Gaborone. Chanda, R., & Totolo, O. (2001). Rangeland st ate, products, producti vity, livelihoods and government policies in the Matsheng area, Kg alagadi north, Botswana An integrated summary report and assessment. Working pa per No. 5. Global change and subsistence rangelands in Southern Africa projec t, Univeristy f Botswana, Gaborone. Chanda, R., Totolo, O., Moleele N., Setshogo, M., & Mosweu, S. (2002). Prospects for subsistence livelihood and environmental sustainability along Kalahari rangelands. Journal of Arid Environments 54, 425-445. Chanda, R., Totolo, O., Akanyang, L., Itshekeng, P., Kenabatho, P., Kgabung, B., Moleel, N. M., Setshogo, M., Moswete, N., Mosweu, S., Mulala M. I., Tlhalerwa, K., Tlhalerwa, N. (2005). Comprehensive summary report on the study of management and policy options
263 for the sustainable development of communal ra ngelands in southern Africa: A case study of the Matsheng, Kgalagadi north, Botswana Department of Environment Science, University of Botswana. Gaborone. Based on data generated by MAPOSDA, a research project fuded by European Commission as INCO Project No. ICA4-CT-2001-10050. Chengeta, Z., Jamare, J., & Chishakwe, N. (2003). Assessment of the st atus of Transboundary Natural Resources Management activities in Botswana. IUCN and TBNRM project, Botswana. Chilisa, A. D. (2000). Tourism development in Bots wana: Problems and potential. In P. U. C. The political economy of tourism in Africa (pp. 154-166). New York. Cognizant communication corporation. Child, G. (1970). Wildlife utilisation and management in Botswana. Biological Conservation 3(1), 18-22. Child, G. (1995). Wildlife and people: The Zimb abwean success. How the conflicts between animals and people became progress for both. Wisdom foundation, Harare and New York. Child, B., Ward, S., & Tavengwa, T. (1997) Zimbabwes CAMPFIRE Programme: Natural resource management by people. World Conservation Union IUCNROSA Environmental Issues Series N0. 2. Harare, Zimbabwe. Child, B. (Ed.) (2004). Parks in Transition: Biodiversity, Rural Development and the Bottom Line. Earthscan, London. Child, G. (2009). The growth of park conservation in Botswana. In H. Suich, B. Child, & A. Spenceley (Eds.), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: Parks and game ranches to Transfrontier conservatio n areas (pp. 187-200). London, Earthscan. Child, B. (2009). Community cons ervation in Southern Africa: rights-based natural resource management. In H. Suich, B. Child, & A. Sp enceley (Eds.), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: Parks and game ranches to Transfrontier Conservation Areas, (pp.187-200). London, Earthscan. Choi, H. S., & Sikaraya, E. ( 2005). Measuring resident s attitudes toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitudes scale. JOunral of Travel Research, 43, 380394. Cock, P., & Pfueller, S. (2000). Australian ecotour ism: contributing to ecological and community sustainability. Geography and Environmental Science, 54 27. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Complementary Research Strategies Thousand Oaks. Sage. Cole, S. (2006). 'Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism', Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(6) 629-644.
264 Conservation International (C I) (2008). Western Kgalagadi conservation corridor (WKCC) project poster. FFEM, Botswana. Cordes, K. A., & Ibrahim, H. M. (1999). Applica tion in recreation and leisure for today and the future (2nd ed.), WCB McGraw-Hill. Boston. Cornejo, K. M. (2004). Promoting community-based ecotourism enterprise in common property regimes: A stakeholder analys is and geographic implication sy stems application in Ejido X-Maben in Central Quintana, Roo, Mexic o. Unpublished MSc Thesis, Mexico. Florida International University, USA. Cornelissen, S. (2005). The globa l tourist system: Gove rnance, development, and lessons from South Africa. Ashgate. USA. Cottrell, S., Pearce, P., & Arntzen, J. (2008). Tourism as an income earner. Botswana Notes and Records, 39, 13-22. Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework fo r analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20, 92-117. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. P. (2007). Desi gning and conducting mixed methods research. London, Sage. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal st ructure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297-334. Crosby, N., Kelly, J., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Ci tizen Panels: a new approach to citizen participation. Public Management Forum 46, 170-178. Cusack, D., & Dixon, L. (2006). Community-based ecotourism and sustainability: Cases in Bocas del Toro Province, Panama and Talamanca, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 22(1&2), 157-182. CSIR (2003). Environmental a udit and review of the socioeconomic impacts of the TransKgalagadi road, specialist report. Prepared for National Conservation Strategy Agency (NCSA). Government of Botswana, Gaborone. Daly, J., McDonald, I., & Willis, E. (1992). Wh y dont you ask them? A qualitative research framework for investigating the diagnoss of crdiac normality. In Da ly, J, McDonald, I, Willis, E. (eds.), researching health care: designs, dilemmas, disciplines (pp. 89-206). London, Routledge. Darley, W. K. (1999). The relationship of antecede nts of search and self-estemm to adolescent search effort and perceived product know ledge. Psychology and Marketing, 16(5), 409427.
265 De Boer, W. F., & Baquete, D. S. (1998). Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation 25(3), 208-218. De Haas, H. (2004). Sustainability of small scale ecotourism: the case of Niue, South Pacific. In M. Luck & T. Kirsges (Eds.), Global ecotouris m Policies and case studies. Perspectives and Constraints (pp. 147-164). Clevedon, Channelview. Dei, L. A. (2000). Community participation in tourism in Africa. In P. U. C. The political economy of tourism in Africa (pp. 285298). New York. Cognizant Communication Corporation. De Lopez, T. T. (2001). Stakeholder manageme nt for conservation projects: a case study of Realm National Park, Cambodia, Envi ronmental Management, 28(1), 47-60. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Department of Tourism (2005). Touris m statistics 2001-2005. Gaborone. Botswana. Department of wildlife and national parks (DWNP). (1986). Wildlife conservation policy. Government Printer. Botswana. Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) (1998) Visitor Statistics Bulletin No. 12, Gaborone. Depart Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) (1999) Visitor Statistics Bulletin No 12, Gaborone. Botswana. Department of Wildlife and National Parks (2006) Visitor Statistics Bulletin Gaborone. Botswana. Ditlhong, M. (1997). Poverty assessment and poverty alleviation in Botswana. Botswana institute for development policy analysis (BIDPA), Working paper 12. Gaborone. Botswana. Dogan, H.Z, (1989). Forms of adjustment: Socio-cultural impacts of touris m. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 216-236. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stake holder theory of the co rporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65-91. Doxey, G. V. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: methodology and research inference. The travel research associ ation conference No.6, San Diego, CA, USA. Drumm, A., & Moore, A. (2002). Ecotourism de velopment: A manual for conservation planners and managers. The nature conservanc y. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http:// www.conserveonline.org/2003
266 Durrant, M. B., & Durrant, J. O. (2008). The in fluence of location on local attitudes toward community conservation on Mount Kilimanjaro. Society and Natural Resources 21, 371386. Dyer, P., Gursoy, D., Sharma, B., & Cater, (2007). Structural modeling of re sident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the sunshine coast, Australia, Tourism Management 28, 409-422. Eagles, P. F. J., & McCool, S. F. (2000). Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and management. Camb ridge, CABI Publishing. Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. D. (2002). Sustainable touris m in Protected Areas: Guidelines for planning and management WCPA, Guideline se ries No.8. IUCN. Eagles, P. F. J. (2009). Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in parks and protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2) March, 231-248. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structur e and function. In D.T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey: the Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.) (pp. 269-322). McGraw-Hill inc. Boston. Emerton, L. (2001). The nature of benefited and th e benefits of nature: Why wildlife conservation has not economically benefitted communities in Africa. In D. Hulme, & M. Murphree (Ed.), African Willdife and Livelihoods: The promise and performance of community conservation (pp. 208-226). Oxford. James Currey. Ezebilo, E. E., & Mattsson, L. Socio-economic benef its of protected areas as percepived by local people around Cross River National Park, Nigeria. Forest Policy and Economics (2009). Doi: 10 1016/iforpol 200909019. Farrington, J. (1996). Socio-economic methods in natural resources research. Overseas development institute. Natural Resource Perspectives 9, 1-9. Faulker, B., Moscardo, G., & Laws E. (2001). Tourism in the 21st century: Lessons from experience. London. Continuum. Fennel, D. (1999). Ecotourism: An introduction. New York, Routledge Fennell, D. (2001). Areas and needs in ecotour ism research, In D.B. Weaver (Ed.), the encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp. 639-651). Cambridge, CABI Publishing. Fennell, D. (2003). Ecotourism: An introduction (2nd ed.), New York, Routledge. Ferreira, S. (2004). Problems associated with tour ism development in Southern Africa: The case of Transfrontier Conservati on areas. GeoJournal 60, 301-310.
267 Fiallo, E. A., & Jacobson, S.K. (1995). Local communities and protected areas: Attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmetal Conservation 22, 241-249. Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statitistics using SPSS (2nd ed.), London, Sage. Flyman, V. M. (2001). Living for tomorrow. In N. Rozemeijer (Ed.), Community-based tourism in Botswana, the SNV experience in three tourism projects ( pp. 47-58). SNV/IUCN Community based natural resources management program, Botswana. Fuller, D., Buultjens, J., & Cummings, E. (2005) Ecotourism and indigen ous micro-enterprise formation in northern Australia: Opportunities and constraints. Tourism Management 26, 891-904. Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, (2006). Bottom-up and topdown: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 78, 114-127. Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, Pitman. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholde rs influence strategies. The Academy of Management Review 24(2), 191-205. Gadd, M. (2005). Conservation outside of parks: Attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya, Environmental Conservation 32 (1), 50-63. Garrod, B. (2003). Local participation in the plan ning and management of ecotourism: A revised model approach. Journal of Ecotourism 2(1), 33-53. Gaski, J. F. (1984). Theory of power and conf lict in conflict in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing 48(summer), 9-29. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2006). SPSS for windows: Step by step: A simple guide and reference (6th ed.), 13.0 Update. Boston. Gillingham, S., & Lee, P. (1999). The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around Se lous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environmental Conservation, 26(3), 218-228. Glatthorn, A. A., & Joyner, R. L. (2005). Writing a winning thesis or dissertation. A step by step guide. California, Corwin, Press. Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003). Tourism: Principles, pr actices, philosophies (9th ed.) New Jersey. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Gossling, S. (1999). Ecotourism: A means to safe guard biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Ecological Economics 29, 303-320.
268 Government of Botswana (1986). Wildlife Conservation Policy. Government Paper No.1 of 1986. Gaborone, Government Printer. Government of Botswana (1990). Tourism polic y. Government paper No. 2 of 1990 Gaborone, Government Printers. Government of Botswana (1992). Wildlife conser vation and national parks Act paper No. 28 of 1992. Gaborone, Government Printer. Government of Botswana (1998). Review of remote area development programme. Gaborone. Governemnt printers. Government of Botswana (GOB (2000 ). Hukuntsi development plan 2000-2004. Ministry of Local Government. Gaborone, Government Printers. Government of Botswana (GOB), (2001). Botswana national atlas. Department of Surveys and Mapping, Botswana, Government Printers. Government of Botswana (2002). Game ranching policy for Botswana No. 5 of 2002. Ministry of Trad, Indutry, wildlife and Tourism. Gaborone. Government Printers. Government of Botswana (2003). National De velopment Plan 9 2003/04-2008/09. Ministry of Finance and Development Planning. Gaborone. Government Printers. Government of Botswana (2007). Community based natural resources management policy. Government paper No. 2, Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism. Gaborone, Government Printers. Government of South Australia (GOSA) (1991). Making South Australia special: South Australia Tourism Plan 1991-1993. Adelaide. Tourism South Asutralia. Gray, N. (2002). Unpacking the baggage of ecotourism: Nature, science and local participation. Great Lakes Geographer 9 (2), 113-123. Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contex ts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55(2), 173-193. Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (Eds.) (1997). R eading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, American Psychological Association. Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research. Palgra ve, Macmillan. Growe, D. (1995). Status of selected wildlife resources in Botswana and recommendations for conservation. In the present stat us of wildlife and its future in Botswana: Proceedings of a symposium (pp. 11-32). Gaborone Kalahari Conservation Society & Chobe Wildlife Trust.
269 Gujadhur, T. (2000). Organizations and their ap proaches in CBNRM in Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. CBNRM Suppor t programme. Occasional paper No.1, SVN/IUCN. Gaborone. Botswana. Gujadhur, T. (2001). Joint venture options for communities and safari operators in Botswana. CBNRM support programme occasional paper No.6, IUCN/SVN. Botswana. Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79-105. Gursoy, D., & Jurowski, C. (2004). Distance effect s on residents attitudes towaed tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31(2), 296-312. Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host att itudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research 31(3), 495-516. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tathan, R. L., & Bl ack, W. C. (1998) Multivariate data analysis (5th ed). Prentice-Hall, Upper saddle River. Hall, C. (2000). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relati onships. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Hanks, J. (2003). Transfrontier Conservation Areas in Southern Africa: Th eir role in conserving biodiversity, soci-economic development and promoting a culture of peace. Jounral of Sustainable Foretry, 17, 121-142. Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceive d impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research 23(3), 503-526. Harrill, R. (2004). Residents attitudes toward tourism development: A li terature review with implications for tourism planning, Journal of Planning Literature 18 (3), 251-266. Harrill, R., & Potts, T. D. (2003). Tourism planning in historic dist ricts: Attitudes toward tourism development in Charleston. Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (3), 233244. Harris, R., Griffin, T., & Williams, P. (2002). Sust ainable Tourism: A global perspective. Oxford, Butterworth. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State university of New York. Hernandez, S. A., & Kaufman, C. J. (1990). Marke ting research in Hispanic Barrios: A guide to survey research. Marketing Research 11-27. Henderson, K. A., Ainsworth, B., Stolarzcyk, L. M ., Hootman, J. M., & Levein, S. (1999). Notes on linking qualitative and quantitative da ta: The cross cultura l physical activity participation study. Leisure Sciences 21(3), 247.
270 Herderson, K. A. (2006). Dimensions of choice: Qualitative approaches to parks, recreation, tourism, sport, and leisure research (2nd ed.), PA. Venture. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholde r value, stakeholder management, and social issues: Whats the bootom line? Stra tegic Management journal, 22, 125-139. Himberg, N. (2006). Community-based ecotourism as a development option in the Taita Hills, Kenya. Unpublished Masters Thesis University of Helsinki. Himoonde, T. (2007). Opportunities and constraints of local particiaption in ecotourism. A case study of Kasanka National Park (KNP) Zambia Unpublished masters thesis, Norwegian Univeristy of Science and Technology, Troondheim, Norway. Hitchcock, R. (1991). Tourism and sustainabl e development among remote area population in Botswana (pp. 161-172), in L. Pfotenhaue r (Ed.) Tourism in Botswana. Gaborone. Botswana. Hitchcock, R. K. (1997). Cultural, economic and environmental impacts of tourism among Kalahari Bushmen. In Tourism a nd culture: Applied Perspective E. Chambers. Albany, State University of New York Press. Hiwasaki, L. (2006). Community-based tourism: A pathway to sustainability for Japans protected areas. Soceity & Natu ral Resources, 19(8), 675-708. Hoehn, S., & Thapa, B. (2009). Attitudes and pe rceptions of indigenous fishermen towards marine resource management in Kuna Yala, Panama. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 16(6), 427-437. Holden, A. (2003). Environment and tourism: Introductions to environment. London. Routledge. Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable de velopment: Who owns paradise? Island Press, Washington. Howard, P. (2003). Heritage: Management, Inte rpreattion, Identity. New York. Continuum. Hulme, D., & Murphree, M. (2001). Commun ity conservation as policy: Promise and performance, In D. Hulme & M. Murphree (Eds.). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The promise and performance of community c onservation (pp. 280-297) Cape Town, David Phillips. Imani-TMT Consortium (2000). The Coast to Coas t Corridor: Development and Transportation Study. Draft Final. Prepared for the Deve lopment Bank of Southern Africa.Vol.1 Transportation. Durban. Infield, M. (1988). Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Biological Conservation 45, 21-46.
271 Infield, M. A., & Namara, A. (2001). Community at titudes and behavior to ward conservation: An assessment of a community conservation program around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx, 35(1), 48-60. Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. VNR tourism and commercial recreation series New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold. International Ecotourism Society (199 0). Ecotourism. Accessed June 25, 2008. http://www.ecotourism.org/ Ite, U. E. (1996). Community of the cross river national park, Nigeria. En vironmental Conservation, 23(4), 351-357. Jamal, T., & Gertz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22(1), 183-202. Jafari, J. (1986). A systematic view of sociocultural dimensions of tourism. In presidents commission of American outdoor, tourism, (pp. 33-50). Washington, DC: United States travel and tourism administration. Jim, C. Y., & Xu, S. S. W. ( 2002). Stifled stakeholders and s ubdued participation: Interpreting local responses toward Shementai Nature Reserve. Environmental Management 30(3), 327-341. Johnson, J. D., Snepenger, D. J., & Akis, S. (1994). Residents pe rceptions of tourism development. Annlas of Tour ism Research, 21(3), 629-642. Johnson, P. (1996). Tourism development plan for the Kgalagadi District. Botswana Phillip Johnson Associates. Jones, B. T. (1997). Parks and resident peoples : Linking Namibian protected areas with local communities. Windhoek, Namibia. Minist ry of Environment and Tourism. Jones, B. T. (1999). Policy lessons from the evolution of a community-based approach to wildlife management, Kunene Region, Namibia. Journal of International Development 11, 295304. Jones, J. L. (2005). Transboundary conservation: Development implications for communities in Kwa Zulu-Natal, South Africa. International Journal of Sustianbale Development and World ecology, 12 (3), 266 Jones, J. L. Transbounday Conservation in So uthern Africa: Explori ng conflict between local resource access and conservation. Retrieved on August 24, 2009 from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/bridging/papers /jones.jennifer.pdf Jordan, P. (2002). Enhancing the economic benef its of tourism for local communities and poverty alleviation. World Tourism Organization. Madrid, Spain.
272 Jurowski, C. A. (1994). The interplay of elements affecting host commun ity resident attitudes toward tourism: A path analytic approach. PhD dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic institute and state University. Michigan, U.M.I. Dissertation Services. Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. ( 1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research 36(2), 3-11. Jurowski, C. & Gursoy, D. (2004) Distance effect s on residents attit udes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 296-312. Jurowski, C., Daniels, M. J., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2006). The distributi on of tourism benefits (192-207). In G. Jennings & N. M. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences. Boston. Elservier Butterworth Heinemann. Kaltenborn, B. P., Bjerke, T., Nyahongo, J. W., & W illims, D. R. (2006). Animal preferences and acceptability of wildlife management actions around SAerengeti Natioal Park, Tanzania. Biodiversity And Conservation, 15, 4633-4649. Kaiser, H.F. (1970). A second-generati on little jiffy. Psychpmetrika, 35, 401-415. Keitumetse, S. (2008). Cultural Tourism in Bots wana. Community participation in the Okavango Delta Tourism. Tourismwatch, Informati onsdienst Dritte Welt-Tourismus. Nr. 51. Kelson, A. E., & Lilieholm, R. J. (1999). Tran sboundary issues in wildlerness management. Environemntal Management, 23(3), 297-305. Keogh, B. (1990). Public participati on in community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 17, 449-465. Keogh, B. (1997). Residents perceptions of tourism in a resort town. Leisure Sciences 20(3), 193-212. Kepe, T., Cousins, B., & Turner, S. (2001). Re source tenure and power re lations in community wildlife: the case of Mkambati area, South Africa. Society and Natural Resources 14, 911925. Kepe, T. (2008). Land claims and co-managment of protected Areas in So uth Africa: Exploring the challenges. Environmental Management 41, 311-321. Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rded.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Fort Worth. Kgabung, B. T. (1999). The impact of the expansi on of the livestock industry on the distribution and utilization of wildlife and veldt products in northern Kgal agadi sub district. Botswana. Unpublished masters thesis, Univ ersity of Botswana. Gaborone. Kgalagadi District Development Committee KDDC (1997). Kgalagadi District Development Plan 5: 1997-2003. Gaborone.
273 Kgalagadi District Development Committee KDDC (2003). Kgalagadi District Development Plan 6: 2003-2005. Gaborone. Khan, M. M. (1997). Tourism development and dependency theory: Mass tourism vs. Ecotourism. Research Notes and Reports 988-991. Khatib, A. H. (2000). Ecotourism in Zanzibar, Tanzania. In P. U. U. Dieke (Ed.), The political economy of tourism development in Af rica (pp.167-180).New York, Cognizant communication corporation. Kibicho, W. (2003). Community tourism: A lesson from Kenyas coastal region. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10(1), 33-42. Kideghesho, J., Roskaft, E., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (2007). Factrs influencing conservation attitudes of local people in western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biordervisty Conservation 16, 2213-2230. King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, M. (1993). Social im pacts of tourism: Host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 650663. Ryan, C., & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell residents to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism. Tourism Management, 15, 358-369. Kiss, A. (Ed.) (1990). Living with wildlife: wildlif e resource management w ith local participation in Africa. Washington DC. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Kiss, A. (2004). Is Community-based ecotouris m a good use of biodiversity conservation Fund? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(5), 232-237. Klein, R. (2007). Status Report for the Cheetah in Botswana. Cheetah conservation Botswana. Gaborone. Ko, W. & Stewart, P. (2002). A structural eq uation model of resident s attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management 23, 521-530. Kuvan, Y., & Kuvan, P. (2005). Resi denstsattitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management 26(5), 691-706. Lai, Pohsin & Nepal, S. K. (2006). Local perspe ctives of ecotourism development in Tawushan nature reserve, Taiwan. Tourism Management 27(6), 1117-1129. LAND f low Solutions (1999). Regional Master Plan for the Western Region 2. Report of Survey for Department of Town and Regional Planning. Ministry of Lands and Housing. Botswana. LAND f low Solutions (2005). Kgalagadi communal areas land management plan 2005-2020. Ministry of Local Government, Botswana.
274 Lane, M. (2001). Affirming new di rections in planning theory: Comanagment of protected areas Society and Natural Resources, 14, 657-671. Lankford, S.V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a Tourism Impact attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 121-139. Lankford, S.V. (1994). Attitudes a nd perceptions toward tourism a nd rural regional development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 35-43. Lawton, L., & Weaver, D. B. (2001). Ecotourism in modified spaces. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, Wa llington, Oxon, CAB International. LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (1999). Analysin g and interpreting enthono graphic data. Walnut Creek, Altamira Press. Lepetu, J. P. (2007). Socio-economic impact and st akeholder preference to conservation of forest reserves: A case study of Kasane forest rese rve, Botswana. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Florida, USA. Lepp, A. (2004). Tourism in a rural Ugadan village: Impacts, local meaning and implications for development. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Florida, USA. Lepp, A. (2007). Residents at titudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda. Tourism Management, 28, 876-885. Lepp, A. (2008). Attitudes toward initial tourism development in a community with no prir tourism expereicne: The case of Bigodi, Ugada. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), 522. Letamo, G ., & Totolo, O. (2003). Population-environment interface in Botswana: Issues, challenges and prospects (99140), In M. Darkoh & A. Rwomire, Human impact on environment and sustainable developm ent in Africa. Ashgate. England. Lewis, R., & Jackson, J. (2005). Safari hunting and conservation on communal land in Southern Africa. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood and Ra binowitz, People and conservation: Conflict and coexistence? Conservation Biology 9 (pp. 239-277). Cambridge University Press. Lindberg, K. (2001). Economic impacts. In D. B. Weaver (ed.), the ency clopedia of ecotourism (pp. 363-376). Cambridge, CABI. Lipscombe, N., & Thwaites R, (2003) Contempor ary challenges for ecotourism in Vietnam. Tourism Review International 7(1), 23(13). Liu, J., & Var, T. (1986). Residents towards tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13, 193-214. Liu, A., & Wall, G. (2006). Planning tourism em ployment: A developing country perspective, Tourism Management 27, 159-170.
275 Little, P. (1994). The link betw een local participation and impr oved conservation: A review of issues and experiences. In D. Western & R. M. Wright (eds.), Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conser vation (pp. 347-372). Washington DC. Island Press. Luck, M., & Kirstges, T. (Eds.) (2003). Global Ec otourism policies and case studies: Perspectives and constraints. Current themes in tourism. Clevedon. Channel View. Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Allen, L. (1990). Rura l resident tourism per ceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism, Journal of Travel Research 28(3), 3-9. Magole, L. I., & Gojamang, O. (2005). The dynamics of tourist visitation to national parks and game reserves in Botswana. Botswana Notes and Records, 37, 80-96. Mantswe Natural Resources Cons ultans (MNRC) (2006). Land use management plan for the Kgalagadi District community contro lled hunting area (CHA) KD 2. Qhaa Qhing Conservation Trust. Botswana. Manwa, H. (2003). Wildlife-based tourism, ecology and sustainability: A tug of war among competing interest in Zimbabwe. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), 45-55. Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 391-411. May, D. (1998). Geography of Botswana Longman. Gaborone. Botswana. Mayoral-Phillips, A. J. (2002). Trans-boundary areas in Southern Africa: Meeting the needs of Conservation or Development? The co mmons in an Age of Globalization, 9th conference of the Internationa l Association for the Study of Common Property, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. Maveneke, T. (1997). Community roles in wi ldlife conservation in SADC region: The Zimbabwean example in proceedings of a national conference on conservation and management of wildlife in Botswana: Strategies for the 21st century (pp. 306-308), DWNP and KCS, Botswana. Mbaiwa, J. E. (2003). "The socio-economic benef its and challenges of a community-based safari hunting tourism in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. The Journal of Tourism Studies 15(2), 37-50. Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005). The problems and prospect s of sustainable tourism development in the Okavango Delata, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(3), 203-227. Mbaiwa, J., Toteng, E. N., & Moswete, N. (2007) Problems andprospects for the development of urban tourism in Gaborone and Maun, Botswa na. Development Southern Africa, 24(5), 725-739.
276 Mbaiwa, J. E. (2008). Tourism development, rura l livelihoods, and conservation in the Okavango Delta, Botswana, Unpublished PhD dissertation. Texas A & M University, USA. Mbile, P., Vabi, M., Meboka., & Okon, D., Arrey, J. (2005). Linking management and livelihood in environmental conservation: case of the Korup National Park, Cameroon, Journal of Environmental Management 76, 1-13. McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural t ourism: The partnerships between tourism and cultural heritage management. New York. Haworth Hospitality Press. Medeiros de Araujo, L., & Bramwell, B. ( 1999). Stakeholder assessment and collaborative tourism planning: The case of Brazils Costa Dourada Project, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7(3&4), 356-378. Mehta, J. N., & Heinen, J.T. (2001). Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An em pirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management 28, 165-177. Meskell, L. (2005). Archaeol ogical ethnography: Conversations around Kruger National Park. Archaeologies, 1 (1), 83-102. Meyers, J. H., & Mullet, G. (2003). Managerial applications of multivariate analysis in marketing. Chicago IL. American Marketing Association. Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousands Oaks, Sage. McCool, S. F., & Martin, S.T. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development. Journal of Tourism Research 32(3), 29-34. McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Fact ors predicting rural re sidents support of tourism. Journal of Travel research 43, 131-140. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qu alitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills, Sage. Millar, S. (2006). Stakeholders and community pa rticipation. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing World Heritage Sites (pp. 3754). New York. Butterworth-Heinemann. Ministry of Lands & Planning (1999) Report of survey. Regional master plan for the western Region. Vol. 2, Environmental planners la ndscape architects. LANDflow Solutions, Botswana. Ministry of Local Government MLG (2003). Kgalagadi district development plan 6 (KDDP): 2003 2006. Kgalagadi District Council. Gaborone. Botswana. Ministry of Local Government (2005). Kgalagad i communal areas land management plan for the period 2005-2008. Final draft. De partment of lands. Gaborone.
277 Ministry of Finance & Devel opment Planning MFDP (2002). Revi sed National Policy for Rural Development. Government Pape r N0. 3. Gaborone. Botswana. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of whom and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-86. Mitchell, R. E., & Reid, D. G. (2001). Community Integration: Island Tourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 113-139. Mitchell, R. K. (2003). Assessing stakeholder interests in prospe rity and cultural well-being. In Nyce (Ed.), Masters in our own house: The path to prosperity and cultural well-being (pp. 91-105). Terrace, Skeena Native Development Society. Mmopelwa, D. L., Kgathi, L., & Molefhe, B. ( 2007). Tourists perceptions and their willingness to pay for park fees: A case stuidy of self drive tourists and clienst for mobile tour operators in Moremi Game reserve, Botswana. Tourism Management 28, 1044-1056. Moleele, N. M., & Maina, J. (2003) Resource use conflict: The future of the Kalahari ecosystem. Journal of Arid Environments, 54, 405. Mordi, R. (1987). Public attitudes toward wildlife in Botswa na. PhD Dissertation, USA, Yale University. USA. Morgan, R. E., & Strong, C. A. (2003). Busine ss performance and dimensions of strategic orientation, Journal of Business Research 56, 163-176. Moswete, N., & Mavondo, F. (2003). Problems faci ng the tourism industry of Botswana. Journal of Society, Botswana Notes and Records, 35, 69-78. Moswete, N. (2007). Key informant survey on perceptions about tourism development in Kgalagadi District. Unpublished prelim inary research report. Botswana. Moswete, N., Toteng, E. N., & Mbaiwa, J. (2009a). Resident Involvement and Participation in Urban Tourism Development: A Comparativ e Study in Maun and Gaborone, Botswana. Urban Forum, 19(4), 381-394. Moswete, N., Thapa, B., & Lacey, G. ( 2009b). Village-based tourism and community participation: A case study of Matsheng villages in southwest Botswana. In J. Saarinen, F. Becker, H. Manwa & D. Wilson (Eds.), Sustai nable tourism in Southern Africa: Local communities and natural resources in tran sition (pp.189-209), Bristol. Channelview. Mpotokwane, M. (1991). Tourism and environmenta l issues in Botswana. In L. Pfotenhauer, (Ed.), Tourism in Botswana, Proceedi ngs of symposium (pp. 146-160) Gaborone, Botswana Society. Mugisha, A. R., (2002). Evaluation of community -based conservation approaches: Management of protected areas in Uganda unpublished PhD dissertation, Univ eristy of Florida, USA.
278 Mugisha, A. R., & Jacobson, S. K. (2004). Th reat reduction assessment of convectional and community-based conservation approaches to managing protected areas in Uganda, Environmental Conservation 31(3), 233-241. Mulale, K. (2005). The structural organiza tion of CBNRM in Botswana. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Iowa State University, USA. Munro, B. (2005). Statistical met hods for health care research (5th ed). Philadelphia PA. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Murphree, M. (2001). A case study of ecotouris m development in Mahenye, Zimbabwe. In D. Hulme, & M. Murphree (Eds.), African wildlife and livelihoods: The promise and performance of community conservation (pp. 177-194). Murphy, P. E. (1981). Community attitudes to tourism: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Tourism Management 189-197. Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A comm unity approach. New York. Methuen. Mutandwa, E., & Gadzirai, C. T. (2007). Impact of community-based approaches to wildlife management: Case study of the CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe. International Jounral of Sustainnable Devel opment and World Ecology, 14, 336-344. Naughton-Treves, L. (1997). Farming the fore st Edge: Vulnerable places and people around Kibale national park, Uganda. Geographical Review, 87(1), 27-46. Natural Resources Services & Grant Thornton Kessel Feinstein (2000) Preparation of the tourism and community empowerment aspects of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park management plan. Background Report. International working document. SANP and DWNP. National Conservation Strategy Agency (2002). Stat e of the environment report. Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism. Prep ared by GeoFLUX Pty (LTD). Gaborone. Nelson, F. (2000). Sustainable development and wildlife conservation in Tanzanian Maasailand, Environment, Development and Sustainability 2, 107-117. Nelson, F. (2004). The evolution and impacts of community-based eco tourism in northern Tanzania. International institute for envi ronment and development (IIED), paper No.131, 1-35. Newmark, W. D., Leonard, N. L., Sariko, H. I., & Gamassa, D. M. (1993). Conservation attitudes of local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biological Conservation, 63, 177-183. Newmark, W. D., Manyanza, D. N., Gamassa, D. M., & Sariko, H. I (1994). The conflict between wildlife and local people living adjacent to pr otected areas in Tanzania: Human density as a predictor. Conservation Biology, 8(1) March, 249-255.
279 Ndubano, E. (2000). The economic impacts of tourism on the local people: The case of Maun in the Ngamiland-Sub District, Unpublished Thesis, University of Botswana. Nicholas, L. N. (2007). Stakeholde r perspectives on the Pitons management area in ST. Lucia: Potential for sustainable tourism developmen t. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Florida, USA Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009). Re sidentss perspectives of a world heritage: the Pitons mnagement area, St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3), 390-412. Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2009). Public sector perspectives and policy implications for the Pitons management area world heritage site, St. Lucia. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 16 (3), 205-216. Nunnaly, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill. New York. Nyaupane, G. P., & Thapa, B. (2004). Evaluation of ecotourism: A comparative assessment in the Annapurna Conservation Area project, Nepal; Journal of Ecotourism 3(1), 20-45. Nyaupane, G., & Thapa, B. (2006). Perceptions of environmental impacts of tourism: A case study at ACAP, Nepal. International Journal of Sus tainable Development and World Ecology, 13(1), 51-61. Nyaupane, G., Morais, D., & Dowler, L. (2006). The role of community involvement and number /type of visitors ecotourism impacts: A c ontrolled comparison of Annapurna, Nepal and Northwestern Yunnan, China. Tourism Management 27(6), 1373-1385. Nyce, C. (2003). Masters in our own house: The pa th to prosperity. Terrace, BC, Skeen native development society: Retrieved on July, 22, 2008 from http://www.snds.bc.ca/master.htm Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The qua litative research 12 (2), 281-316. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Samp ling designs in qualitative research: Making the sampling process more public. The Qualitative Research, 12(2), 238-254. Oppermann, M., & Chon, K. S. (1997). Tourism in developing countries. International Thomson Business Press. London. Orams, M. B. (1995). Towards a more desira ble form of ecotourism. Current issues. Tourism Management 16(1), 3-8. Orams, M. (2002). Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: A review of issues and impacts. Tourism Management, 23(2), 281-293. Ormsby, A., & Kaplin, B. A. (2005). A framew ork for understanding community residents perceptions of Mosoala Nati onal Park, Madagascar. Environmental Conservation, 32(2), 156-164.
280 Ormsby, A., & Mannie, K. (2006). Ecotourism benefits and the role of local guides at Masoala National Park, Madagscar. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(3), 271-287. Osborne, J. W., & Waters, E. (2002). Assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment and evaluation 8(2), 1-5. Retrieved on November 26, 2009 from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=2 Oviedo-Garcia, M., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Martin-Ruiz, D. (2008). Gaining residents support for tourism planning. Intenrational Journal of tourism research, 10, 95-109. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual. Maideuh ead, Berkshire. Open Univeristy Press. Page, S. J., & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Ecotourism. New York. Prentice Hall. Parker, S., & Khare, A. (2005). Understanding success factors for ensuring sustainability in ecotourism development in Southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism 4(1), 32-46. Parris, R., & Child, G. (1973). The importance of pans to wildlife in the Kala hari and the effect of human settlements on these areas. Journal of Southern African Wildlife management Association 3(1), 1-8. Parry, D., & Campbell, B. (1992). Attitudes of rural communities to animal wildlife and its utilization in Chobe Enclave a nd Mababe Depression, Botswana. Environmental Conservation 19(3), 245-252. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative ev aluation and research methods (2nd ed.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.), London, Sage. Park Peace Fondation PPF (2003). Profile of th e Peace Parks Foundation. Retrieved on March 14, 2009 from http://www.peaceparks.org Peace Parks Foundation (2009). W hat progress ha s been made? Retrieved on March 14, 2009 from http://www.peaceparks.org Pennington-Gray, L. (2005). Residen t attitudes toward s tourism in a destination in the stagnation stage of the tourism cycle. Sustainable Development and Planning 2, 1411-1418. Pennington-Gray, L. (2006). Political-Economic cons truction of quality tourism experiences. In G. Jennings & N. M. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences ((pp. 208-224), Boston. Elservier Butterworth Heinemann. Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., and Allen, L. ( 1990). Resident support for tourism development, Annals of Tourism Research 17, 586-599.
281 Perkins, J. S., & Ringrose, S.M. (1996). De velopment cooperation objectives and the beef protocol: The case of Botswana: A study of livestock/wildlife/tourism/degradation linkages. For Metroeconomica Ltd. Contr act B-7-504094. University of Botswana, Gaborone. Pessemier, E. A., Bemmoar, A. C., & Hansse ns, (1977). Willingness to supply Human Body Parts: Some emperical results, Jounral of Consumer Research 4 (December), 131-140. Peter, J. (1999). Understanding conflicts between people and parks at Ra nomafana, Madagascar. Agriculture and Human Values 16, 65-74. Petric, Lidija (2007). Empowerment of communities for sustainable tourism development: Case f Crotia. Tourism Review, 55(4), 431-443. Phuthego, T. C., & Chanda, R. (2004). Traditi onal ecological knowledge and community based natural resource management: Lessons for a Botswana wildlife management area. Applied Geography 24, 57-76. Pigram, J. J. (1992). Alternative tourism: Touris m and sustainable resource management. In V. L. Smith & W.R. Eadington (Eds.), Tourism alte rnatives: Potentials and problems in the development of tourism (pp. 76-87). Philadel phia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pizam, A. (1978). Tourist impacts: the social costs to the destination community as perceived by the residents. Journal of Travel Research, 16(4), 8-12. Pretty, J. (1995). The many inte rpretations of participation. Focus 16, 4-5. Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. (2002). Implementing e nvironmental policies in developing countries through decentralization: the case of protected areas in Bahia, Brazil, world development, 30(10), 1713-1736. Reid, H., & Turner, S. (2004). The Richtersveld and Makuleke contractual parks in South Africa: Win-win for communities and conservation. In C. Fabricius & E. Koch (Eds.), Rights, Resources & Rural development: Community-b ased natural resource management in Southern Africa (pp. 223234). London, Earthscan. Reinius, S. W., & Fredman, P. (2007) Protected areas as attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 839-854. Relly, P. (2008). Madikwe Game Reserve, Sout h Africa-Investment and Employment. In A. Spenceley (Ed.), Responsible tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and development (pp. 267282), London. Earthscan. Richards, M. (1996). Protected area s, people and incentives in the search for sustainable forest conservation in Honduras. Environmental Conservation 23 (3), 207-217. Richards, G. (Ed) (2007). Cultural tourism: Gl obal and local perspectives. New York, Haworth Hospitality Press.
282 Robertson, I. (1989). Society: A brief in troduction. Worth-Publishers. New York. Robertson, J., & Lawes, M. J. (2005). User pe rceptions of conservation and participatory management of iGxalingenwa of forest, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 32 (1), 64-75. Robinson, J. (2001). Draft tourism development framework (TDF). United Nations Development Program and World Tourism Organization. Te chnical Missions to Botswana, Gaborone. Roe, D., & Hollands, M. (2004). Protected areas: How much is enough? Inte rnational institute for environment and development in collaborat ion with the regional and international networking group. Roodt, V. (2008). The Shell Tourism Map and Travel Guide: Botswana (5th ed). Shell Oil Botswana. Gaborone. Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Evaluating ecotourism: The case of North Sulawasi, Indonesia. Tourism Management 20(6), 673-682. Rozemeijer, N., & Van der Jagt, C. (2000). Co mmunity-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in Botswana: How community base d is CBNRM in Botswana? Working paper produced as part of the IUCN /SNV CBNRM/SVN. Botswana. Rozemeijer, N. (Ed.). (2001). Community based tourism in Botswana: The SNV experience in three tourism projects SNV/IUCN Community based na tural resources management program. Botswana. Rozemeijer, N. (2009). CBNRM in Botswana. In H. Suich, B. Child, & A. Spenceley (Eds.), Evolution and innovation in wildlife c onservation: Parks and game ranches to Transfrontier conservation areas (pp. 243-256). London, Earthscan. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitativ e interviewing: The ar t of hearing data 2nd edition. Sage. Sah, J. P., & Heinen, J. T. (2001). Wetland resource use and conser vation attitudes among indigenous and migrant in G hodaghidi Lake area, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 28(4), 345-356. Sandwith, T., Shine, C., Hamilton, L., & Sheppard, D. (2001). Transboundary protected areas for peace and co-operation. World commission on protected areas. IUCN. Best practice protected area guidelines series No.7. Cardiff. Sauter, S. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2), 332-238. Sayre, S. (2001). Qualitative methods for market research, Thousands Oaks, Sage.
283 Sharpley, R. S., & Telfer, D. J. (Ed.) (2002). Tourism and development: Concepts and Issues. Clevedon, Channelview. Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities, Tourism Management 20, 245-249. Scheyvens, R. (2003). Tourism for development, empowering communities. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Schoon, M. (2008). Building robustness to disturba nces: Governance in Southern African Peace Parks. Unpublised PhD disserta tion. Indiana University. USA. Sebele, L. S. (2009). Community-based tourism ve ntures, benefits and ch allenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management 1-11. Segobye, A. (2006). Divided commons: The political economy if Southern Africans cultural heritage landscapes obaservations of the Central Kgalagadi game reserve, Botswana, Archaeologies 2(1), 52-72. Selby, H. (1991). Hunting as a component of tourism in Botswana (pp. 370-380) in L. Pfotenhauer, (Ed.) Tourism in Bots wana. Gaborone. Botswana Society. Sekhar, N. U. (2003). Local peoples attitude s towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 69, 339-347. Sibanda, B. M. C., & Omwega, A.K. (1996). So me reflections on conservation, sustainable development and equitable shari ng of benefits from wildlife in Africa. The case of Kenya and Zimbabwe. African Journal of Wildlife Resources 26 (4), 175-181. Sikaraya, E. (1997). Attitudinal compliance with ecotourism guidelines. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 442-445. Sikaraya, E., Teye, V., & Sonmez, S. (2002). Understanding residents support for tourism development in the Central Region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research 41, 57-67. Simmons, D. (1994). Community part icipation in tourism planning. Tourism Management 15(2), 98-108. Simpson, M. (2008). The impacts of tourism in iatives on rural liveli hoods and poverty reduction in South Africa: Mathenjwa and Mqobela. In A. Spenceley (Ed.), Responsible tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and de velopment (pp. 239-266) London. Earthscan. Shackley, M. (1998). Visitor management: Case studi es from world heritage sites; ButterworthHeinemann. Oxford.
284 Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Wollengberg, E ., & Edmunds, D. (2002). Devolution and community-based natural resource manageme nt:Creating space for local people to participate and benefit? Natural Resour ce Perspectives working paper No. 76. London. Overseas Development Institute. Sharpley, R., & Telfer, D. (2002). (Eds.) Tourism and development concepts and issues (pp. 149164), Channelview. Clevedon. Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1984). Residents attitudes to tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management 5(2), 40-47. Smith, M. D., & Krannich, R. S. (1998). Tourism dependence and resident attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 783-802. Sofield, T. H. B. (2003). Empowerment for sustai nable tourism development. Boston, Pergamon. Sorongwa, N. A. (1999). Community-based wild life management in Ta nzania: Are communities interested? World Deve lopment, 27(12), 2061-2079. South African Park Board & Department of Wildlife & National Pa rks (1997). Kgalagadi Transfrontier Par Management Plan (April 1997). Gaborone. Botswana. South African Park Board & Department of W ildlife & National Parks (1999). South Africa and Botswana sign historic agreement to formali ze establishment of Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park: Joint Press Rease, 12th April, 1999. Botswana. South African National Park (2008). Official information guide to Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. South Africa. South African Park Board & Department of Wildlife & National Park s (2008). Map of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. South Africa. Soto, B. (2009). Protected areas in Mozambique. In H. Suich, B. Child, & A. Spenceley (Eds.), Evolution and innovation in wildlife c onservation: Parks and game ranches to Transfrontier conservation areas (pp. 85-111). London, Earthscan. Spenceley, A. (2008). Responsible tourism: critical issues for conservation and development. London. Earthscan. Spencely, A. (2008). Local impacts of community-b ased tourism in Southern Africa. In A. Spenceley (Ed.), Responsible tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and development (pp. 287-301) London. Earthscan. Spiteri, A., & Nepal, S. K. ( 2008). Distributing conservation incen tives in the buffer zone of Chitwan national park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 35(1), 76-86.
285 Sproule, K., & Subandi, A. (1998). Guidelines for community-based ecotourism programs: Lessons from Indonesia. In Lindberg, K., Wood M. & Engeldrum, D. (Eds.). Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers: Volu me 2 (pp. 215-235). North Bennington, VT: The International Ecotourism Society. Stem, C. J., Lassoie, J. P., Lee, D. R., Deshle r, D. D., & Schelhas, J. W. (2003). Community participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practi ces and perspectives. Society and Natural Resources 16, 387-413. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic qualita tive research: Technique s and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.), California, Sage. Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(3), 210230. Suich, H., Busch,J., & Barbancho, N. (2005). Econo mic impacts of Transfrontier Conservation Areas: Baseline of tourism in the KavangoZambezi TFCA. Conservation International South Africa, paper No. 4. South Africa. Suich, H. (2008). Tourism in Transfrontier c onservation areas: The Kavango-Zambezi TFCA. In A. Spenceley (Ed.), Responsible tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and development (pp. 187204) London. Earthscan. Suich, H., Child, B., & Spencely, A. (2009). Evol ution and innovation in wildlife conservation: Parks and Game Ranches to Transfrontie r Conservation Areas, London, Earthscan. Symbiosis Consulting (2001). Botswana national ecotourism strate gy. Final draft. Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism. Prep ared by IUCB (Botswana) and Symbiosis Consulting Pty. Botswana. Swatuk, L. A. (2005). From project to context: community-based natural resource management in Botswana. Global Environmental Politics 5(3), 95-119. Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism deve lopment. Wallington, UK. CAB International. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, Allyn and Bacon. Tao, T. C. H., & Wall, G. (2008). Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy. Tourism Management, 1-9. Taylor, M. (2007). CBNRM for whose benefit? A case study of subsistence hunting on the Boundaries of Botswanas northern prot ected areas. CBNRM Support Programme; Occasional paper No. 5. Botswana. Telfer, D. J., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Tourism and development in the developing world. London. Routledge.
286 Teye, V., Sonmez, S. F., & Sikaraya, E. (2002). Residents attitudes toward tourism development. Annlas of Tourism Research, 29(3), 668-688. Timothy, D. J. (1999). Participatory pla nning: a view of tourism in Indonesia, Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2), 371-391. Timothy, D. J. (2002) Tourism and community deve lopment issues, In R. Sharpley & D. Telfer (Eds.), Tourism and Development Concepts and issues (pp. 149-164). Clevedon, Channelview. Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2006 ). Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued traditions and new perspectives. Journal of He ritage Tourism, 1(1), 1-16. Thakadu, O. (2002). Towards Kalahari ecosyste m Biosphere in Botswana (52-54). In United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultura l Organization, Proceedings of the AFRIMAB Technical workshop for Anglophone countri es Nairobi, Kenya, 12-15 September 2000. UNESCO, Nairobi. Thakadu, O. T., Mangadi, K. T., Bernard, F. E., & Mbaiwa, J. E. (2006). The economic contribution of safari hunting to rural liv elihood in the Okavango: The case of Sankuyo village. Botswana Notes and Records 37, 22-39. Thusanyo Lefatsheng Trust (TLT) (1998). Land use and management plan: Controlled Hunting Area KD 1. Nqwaa Khobee Xeya Trust. Botswana. Thusanyo Lefatsheng Trust (TLT) (2005). Land use and management plan: Controlled Hunting Area KD 15. Final Draft, Khawa Kopanelo Development Trust. Botswana. The Ecotourism Society (1998). Ecotourism statis tical fact sheet. Retrieved on March 9 2009 from http:// www.ecotourism.org Tomicevic, J., Shannon, M. A., & Milovanovic, M. (2009). Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resour ces: Case study from Serbia. Forest Policy and Economics. Doi: 10 1016/ifornol200909006. Tomjenovic, R. & Faulkner, B. (1999). Tourism and older residents in a Sunbelt Resort. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 93-114. Tosun, C. (1998). Roots of sustainable tourism de velopment and the local level: The case of Urgup in Turkey. Tourism Management, 19(6), 595-610. Tosun, C., & Jenkins, C. L. (1998). The evolution of tourism planning in third world countries: A critique. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 4, 101-114. Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community particip ation in the tourism development process in developing countries, Tourism Management 21, 613-633.
287 Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 231-245. Tosun, C., & Timothy, D. J. (2003). Arguments for community participation in tourism development process. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), 215. Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of commun ity participation in tourism development. Tourism Management 27, 493-503. Toteng, E. N. (2004). The Private sector, urban water conservation and developing countries: A stakeholder theory-driven pe rspective from Botswana. South African Geographical Journal 86(2), 113-121. Toteng, E., Mbaiwa, J., & Moswete, N. (2006). Community attitudes an d perceptions towards urban ecological issues in Maun and Gaborone, Botswana. Botswana Notes and Records, 37(1), 108-124. Totolo, O., & Toteng, E. N. (1998). Wildlife resour ces in Botswana: Issues and problems. In J. Atlhopheng, C. Molebatsi, E. Toteng & O. Totolo (Eds.), Environemental issues in Botswana: A handbook (pp. 97-121 ). Gaborone, Lightbooks. Totolo, O. (1998). Rangelands Issues in Botswana. In J. Atlhopheng, C. Molebatsi, E. Toteng & O. Totolo (eds.), Environemental issues in Botswana: A handbook (pp. 37-58). Gaborone, Lightbooks. Totolo, O., & Chanda, R. (2003). Prospects for subsistence livelihood and environmental sustainability along the Kalahari Transect: The case of Matsheng in Botswanas Kalahari rangelands. Journal of Arid Environments 54, 425-445. Tsaur, S., Lin, Y., & Lin, J. (2006). Evaluating ec otourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, Community and tourism. Tourism Management 27, 640-653. Tsing, A. L., Brosius, J. P., & Zerner, C. ( 1999) Assessing community based natural resources management. AMBIO, 28(2), 197-198. Tyrell, T. J., & Spaulding, I. A. (1984). A survey of attitudes toward tourism growth in Rhode Island. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 8(2), 22-33. Twyman, C. (2001). Natural resources use and liv elihoods in Botswanas wildlife management areas. Applied Geography, 21, 45-68. Twyman, C. (2000). Particiapatory conser vation? Community-based natural resource management in Botswana, The Geography Journal, 166(4), 323-335. Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1987). Measuirng reside nts attachment levels in a host community. Journal of Travel re search, 25 (3), 27-29.
288 United Nations (2001). Managing sustainable tourism development. Economic and social commissions for Asia and The pacific (ESCAP). Tourism Review No. 22. UNESCO (United Nationals Educational, Scie ntific and Cultural Organization). 2002. Proceedings of the AfriMAB Technical Wo rkshop for Anglophone Countries Nairobi, Kenya, 12-15 September 2000. UNESCO, Nairobi, Kenya. 78 pp. Van der Jagt, C. J., Gujadhur, T., & Van Busse l, F. (2000). Community benefits through community based natural resources ma nagement in Botswana. CBNRM Support programme. Occasional paper No 2. Botswana SNV/IUCN. Gaborone. Van der Jagt, C. J., & Gujadhur, T. (2002).Practic al guide for facilitating CBNRM in Botswana. CBNRM Support programme. Occasional paper No. 8. Botswana SNV/IUCN. Gaborone. Veal, A. J. (2006). Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical guide (3rd ed.), England. Prentice Hall. Velimpini, K., & Perkins, J. S. (2008). Integr ating indigenous techni cal knowledge and modern scientific knowledge for biodi versity conservation and human livelihoods in the southern Kalahari. Botswana Notes and Records, 39, 75-88. Verlinden, A. (1997). Human settlem ents and wildlife distribution in the southern Kalahari of Botswana. Biological Conservation 82, 82-136. Vincent, V. C., & Thompson, W. (2002). Assess ing community support and sustainability for ecotourism development. Journal of Travel Research 41, 153-160. Walker, S. L. (1996). Ecotourism impact aw areness. Research notes and reports. Annals of Tourism Research 23(4), 944945. Wall, G. (1996). Perspectives of tour ism in selected Balinese villages. Annals of Tourism Research 23(1), 123-137. Walpole, M. J. (2000). Feeding dragons in Komodo national park: A tourism tool with conservation complications, Animal Conservation 4, 67-73. Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2001). Local attitudes towards c onservation and tourism around Komodo national park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 28(2), 160-166. Wang, Y. A., & Pfister, R. E. (2008). Residents attitudes toward tourism and perceived personal benefits in a rural community, Journal of Travel Research 47 (August), 84-93. Weaver, D. B. (2001). The encyclopedia ecotourism. Australia. John Wiley & Sons. Weaver, D. B. (2001). Desert, Grasslands and Savannas. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), the encyclopedia ecotourism (pp. 251263). Cambridge, CABI.
289 Weaver, D. B. & Lawton, L. J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management 28, 1168-1179. Wearing, S. (2001), Exploring socio-cultural imp acts on local communities. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), the encyclopedia ecotouris m (pp. 395-410). Australia. CABI. Weladji, R. B., & Tchamba, N. M. (2003). Conflic t between people and prot ected areas within the Benoue wildlife conservation area, north Cameroon. Oryx, 37: 72-79. Weladji, R. B., Moe, S. R., & Vedeld, P (2003). Stakeholder attitudes to wards wildlife policy and Benoue wildlife conservation area, north Ca meroon. Environmental conservation, 30(4), 334-343. Welbourne, M. (2001). Knowledge. Montreal and Kingston. McGill-Q ueens University Press. Wells, M. P., & Brandon, K. (1992). People and pa rks: Linking protected area management with local communities. Washington DC, World Bank. Wells, M. P., & Brandon, K. (1993). The principles and practice of buffer zones and local participation in biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22(2), 157-162. Western, D., & Wright, R. M. (1994). The back ground to community-based conservation. In D. Western, M. Wright, S. Strumm (Eds.), Natura l connections: Perspectives in communitybased conservation (pp. 1-12). Wa shington, DC: Islands Press. Conservation International (CI). Western Kgalagadi Conservation Corridor Project. Botswana Government-Conservation International and French Global Environmental Fund. Retrieved on March 3, 2009 from http:// www.ambafrance-bw.org W illiams, J., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community issues and resident opinions of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 28(2), 269-290. Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D. R., Fesenmaier, J. & Va n Es, J. C. (2001). Factors for success in rural tourism development. Journal of Travel Research 40, 132-138. World Tourism Organization (2001). Tourism in the least devel oped countries. Report form a high-level meeting on tourism and development in the least develope d countries held in Spain, 26-29 March. WTO, Madrid. World Tourism Organization ( 2002). Tourism and poverty a lleviation, WTO, Madrid. World Travel & Tourism Council (2007). Botswana: The impact of travel and tourism on jobs and the economy. London. UK. World Bank (1996). Transfrontier conservation areas pilot and inst itutional strengthening project, Mozambique. World Bank. Agriculture and E nvironment Divisions. Southern Africa department. Washington DC.
290 Wunder, S. (2000). Ecotourism and economic incentives: An empirical approach. Ecological Economics, 32(3), 465-479. World Wide Fund International (WWF) (2001). Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development. Prepared by R. Denman, The tourism company. United Kingdom. Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (1999). St akeholder interviews and tourism planning at Pamukale, Turkey. Tourism Management, 20, 351-360. Zamani-Farahani, H., & Musa, G. (2008). Reside nts attitudes and perception towards tourism development: A case study of Masooleh, Iran. Tourism Management 29, 1233-1236. Zube, E. H. (1986). Local and extra-local per ceptions of National-Park s and Protected areas. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 13, 11-17. Zwick, W. R., & Wayne, F. V. ( 1986). Comparison of five rules fo r determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin 99, 432-442.
291 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Naom i Moswete (nee Moatshe) was born and raised in a small remote village of Mmathubudukwane in Kgatleng District, Botswana Her parents, Morwadi and Botha Moatshe were farmers. She attended Letsebe Primary school (1973-1979), Matshekge Hill School for junior certificate (1980-1982) a nd Lotsane Senior Secondary School for Cambridge Overseas School Certificate (1983-1984). She then joined the National Service (Tirelo Sechaba) and completed one year of field work in a tiny rural village of Marapong in Central District, Botswana. The author joined the Univeristy of Botswana (1986-1991) where she majored in Environmental Science and African Languages. After graduating from the Univ eristy of Botswana (UB) with a Bachelor of Arts degree (Humanities) and Post Graduate Diploma in Education, she was offered a teaching job at Kgari Sechele Senior Secondary School (KSII) in Mo lepolole village, where she taught geography (1991-1996). While at KSII she was the coordinator of the School drama club, and also a member of the Molepolole Village Stop Crime Committee. In May 1996, Naomi joined the Department of Environmental Science, University of Botswana, as a Staff Development Fellow. Sh e moved to Melbourne Australia, where she completed her masters degree in Tourism at Monash Universitys Clayton campus. After completing her studies in Australia, she moved b ack to the University of Botswana, where she worked as a Lecturer and taught the follo wing undergraduate courses: Human geography, Introduction to statistics in Geography (elementary), Ecotourism, Introduction to Wildlife and Tourism Development (2000-2004). At the time, Naomi was nominated as a member of the Botswana National Advisory committee, Country representative of the In ternational Academy of African Business and Development. She also served in the following committees: Kalahari Conservation Society, and the Botswana National Museum and Art Gallery. The author was also
292 the coordinator of the Study Abroad Program at UB. In 2004, the author was offered a W. Kellogg Foundation study grant, which enabled her to join the University of Florida at Gainesville where she pursued her doctoral program, focusi ng on management of protected areas, community conservation and development, ecotourism and lo cal communities. She intends to rejoin the University of Botswana on completion of her doctoral program.