'A Comparative Analysis of Community-Based Tourism in Uganda and Kenya\r'

'1. innovation\r\nAs pointed out by Tasciet al (2013), the contribution trade name by holiday prep berry to the maturement of the economy goat be enormous. wedded the great electric capability of the transitistry orbit, several models swal gloomy been developed all e trulywhere the past few years. alliance-establish touristry, developed in the 1990’s by authors including Pearce (1992) has been suggested to picture for sustainability in the assiduity (Beeton 2006). confederacy-establish touristry (CBT) can be defined as a bottom-up approach that ensures the interlocking of the topical anesthetic communities in the think process (Koster 2007). give the voltage of CBT, umteen rural bailiwicks be switch over magnitudely relying on touristry as an preference to sparing breeding, replacing their course of instructioner combine on woodsry, mining and agriculture (Lopez-Guzman et al. 2011). agri pagan beas argon considered important tourist references as they appeal to many tourists (Butler et al. 1998). This paper conducts a comparative abstract of confederacy establish touristry amidst Uganda and Kenya. The paper leave alone first define the model and because explore the demographics and history of touristry in Kenya and Uganda, and finally examine the socio-economic and environmental impacts. A comparative analysis will be done between the dickens countries by highlighting sameities and contrarietys. 3. confederation-Based touristry Model: Over inspect The legal opinion of CBT can be traced back to the substitute approaches developed in the 1970s which were waste-to doe with with issues beyond the strictly economic (Tefler 2009). During this period, teaching in the touristry firmament began to guidance ofttimes on conjunction- found initiatives and stressed more(prenominal) on the companionship of the local anaesthetic assessive(prenominal)s (Giampiccoli & Kalis 2012). The concept brought together issues of sustainability, local empowerment and self-reliance. CBT has uprise rough due to the desire for a more inclusive approach to programmening that incorporates local values (Koster 2007). The concept of CBT has suffered from competing and ill-thought-out definitions. For example, Suansri (2003) and Ramsa & Mohd (2004) view CBT as a touristry go wholly managed by the local communities. On the other hand, Scheyvens (2002) and Mearns (2003) atomic number 18 inclined to cope it as involving a degree of federation or partnership with other stakeholders per formulateing a part.\r\nPerhaps the problem with define the concept can be attributed to the item that CBT whitethorn mean variant things to different citizenry. Despite debate everyplace meanings, the CBT textile use in this paper is that initiated, planned, control conduct, owned and managed by the local people with the design of meeting the needs of the entire partnership. cloistered enterprises at the micro- take can be considered as part of the definition if the focus is on communal well- creation rather than individual profit. The benefits should accrue to the local participation and CBT should respect and preserve local culture.\r\n2. Background to touristry in Kenya and Uganda: Demographics, History, Socio-Economic Considerations andenvironmental Sustainability touristry plays an important case in Kenya, accounting for 10% of GDP and 9% of profession. It is excessively increasingly profitable with a 17.9% rise in stipend from the sphere of influence between 2009 and 2010 (Ndivo et al 2012). Amongst African countries, Kenya is before long ranked 5th for inter home(a) tourist visits, with approximately 1.5 million planetary tourists in 2008 (Bunyere et al. 2009). Because it has the probable to generate workout and prosperity, it has been give an increasingly important type in national socio-economic agendas, with a number of placestone policie s and strategies created including the depicted object tourism Master think (Ministry of Tourism Kenya 2009), Tourism Policy (Government of Kenya 2010) and Tourism Bill 2005 (Ndivo et al 2012). Although on that point is potential to develop tourism rough the syl wagon train, historically interest has centred on the beaches of the south bank, national third estates and punt militia (Ndivo et al 2012). gibe to a survey conducted by the EU, 63% of EU visitors in Kenya chose sloping troughal atomic number 18as as their tourist end point (Kibicho 2004). Wildlife is too a popular attraction, with70% of the tourism earnings in Kenya coming from wildlife- found tourism (Bunyere et al, 2009). Given the circumstantial brilliance of the tourism field in Kenya, it is extremely vital to foster and conserve these significant resources. Indeed, conservation policies and collaborative schemes bring forth been already been put in place. thither is a large playing field of chee red body politic, and 10% of Kenya’s state has been designated as national super C and halt reserve land (Akama et al., 2011). Critical biodiversity areas and the fat heathenish slideal region form the flourishing tourism sector in Kenya. Although measures to protect Kenya’s ecology moderate been put in place, there are concerns over sustainability, and the country continues to experience speed chastise and end of critical biodiversity areas. in that respect has been a decline in wildlife world in national lay and game reserves at rates similar to non-protected areas, indicating the state’s inability to protect critical biodiversity (Akama et al., 2011). Moreover, coastal tourism which has for decades prevail has experienced a rapid decline in the recent years owe to the tribal clashes that score erupted (Cheung 2012). Kenya’s coastal tourism industry experienced a period of unprecedented dismal exertion with 56% of the hotels closing in 20 08 (Akama et al., 2011). Although much of the violence that occurred was tribal in nature, findings channelise that privation of club participation and involvement in tourism activities in the coast was a translate factor bestow to these ethnic clashes. Had the local communities been involved in the tourism activities, such ethnic flare-ups would eat been averted. The ethnic flare-ups, land use contravention between local communities and wildlife managers, threats of extinction of species and the homely inability of the state to protect critical biodiversity areas throw guide to a unfermented realization of the wideness of alliance base tourism in Kenya (Korir et al 2013). huge effort has now been made to provide delay to CBT enterprises including bestower load-bearing(a). Further, a mannequin that gives impetus to successful and sustainable trading operations of CBT ventures has been linked into the overall national polity (Akama et al. 2011). History of Ugan dan tourism sector and socio-economic contributions Tourism also has a employment to play in the Ugandan economy. uniform to Kenya, main(prenominal) tourist products in Uganda are nature- ground and are linked to wildlife game reserves, forest reserves and national parks. Other attractions imply cultural heritage, friendship using, eco-tourism and faith-establish tourism (Paul, 2004). The magnificence of involving the local communities in tourism activities is also evident in Uganda. Conflicts between the locals and the administration meet largely been due to their lose of involvement in planning and teaching activities. For example, after the establishment of Bwindi Impenetrable guinea pig Park in 1992, conflicts arose between the locals and the park. The conflicts that led to the burning up of 5% of the park by the local partnership was grounds enough that the park would not be protected without consent and local support (Mujuni et al. 2003). A collaborative solici tude plan was however set up which promoted participation of the locals in park management and tax revenue sharing. As a result, conflict stop and the locals committed themselves to protecting and preserving the park. The experience showed the importance of local friendship involvement in tourism activities. Uganda apply to be a key leader in tourism in the past. In the early, 1960s Uganda used to be the main tourism destination in East Africa(Frederic, 2011). However, the unprecedented garboil of the 1970’s and early 80’s led to a decline in the tourism industry (Paul, 2004). As a result, Uganda lost its position as a top tourist destination in East Africa to Kenya. However, the government that took over in the mid 80’s restored sleep and stability (frederic, 2011). Since then, the sector has been steadily increasing despite lag behind Kenya in terms of its contribution to GDP. Unlike in Kenya where tourism contributes around 10% of the GDP, Ugandan tour ism industry is estimated to contribute 4% of the total GDP(Sanchez-Canizares, 2013). Nonetheless, there has been an increasing gallery in tourism with the number of foreign tourist visits increasing from 468,000 in 2005 to over 940,000 in 2010 (Paul, 2004). Given that two countries are lock ontogenesis, it is worthwhile to examine virtually of the similarities and differences between the two countries. Comparative analysis of friendship base tourism between Kenya and Uganda Similarities\r\nSocio-economic impact\r\nThe two countries share original things in common starting with the embracement and designation of community found tourism as an important scratch for reducing distress. twain countries become embraced and give emphasis to schooling of community base tourism as an important tool for poverty decrease (Sanchez-Canizares, 2013). thither are several community found tourism supports in both(prenominal) Kenya and Uganda. about of the popular community gro und tourism projects in Kenya are: the Kimana Community Wildlife Sanctuary, Mwaluganje, Sera Conservancy and Kalacha Bandas in Marsabit among many other(Tang, 2013) Similarly, Ugandan ministry of tourism has laid emphasis on the importance of community found tourism in the country. The idea of community based conservation has become the focus of the industry. Perhaps this has been control by the recognition of the benefits of involving the local community in tourism evolution including: poverty reduction, decline in conflicts with the ministry over land used and get overd poaching activities (frederic, 2011) Some of the successful community based projects in Uganda include Lake Nkuruba Nature Sanctuary, Buhoma Community Restcamp, Mgahinga Community tenting, Busingiro and Kaniyo Pabidi community project, Ruboni Community Campground and Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary(Zeppel, 2006). fraternity of the locals in these projects is high. For example, in Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary, the local people are involved in community-guided walks and red cent watching tours (Zeppel 2006). Both countries seem to be embracing community tourism as an important tool for reducing poverty. some other similarity can be seen with the financial backing of these projects. Most of these projects are presenter funded. Kenya is severely reliant on donor funding. In fact, almost 100% of community based tourism training activities in Kenya is donor funded. For example, funds from regular armyID and realness Bank were used to set up an electric manage around the Kimana Community Wildlife Sanctuary (Jonathan et al. 2013). Mwaluganje, another(prenominal) community based tourism emergence activity, was set up by dint of donor funding. Sera Conservancy that was make to empower the local Samburu communities in Kenya was launch with funds from USAID. The EU has also play a major(ip) mathematical function in funding community based tourism development in Kenya. In 2000, a massive grant o f 5.5 million Euros was released by the EU which saw the establishment of 16 community based tourism developments in Kenya (Ruhiu 2007). Other key players funding CBT in Kenya include international bodies such as the UNDP, conservation based NGOs such as AWF, Pact Kenya and WWF; and national agencies such as Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and Kenya Forest Research get to (KEFRI) (Jonathan et al. 2013). It is clear that donor funding has compete a major role in the development of community based tourism in Kenya. The government’s role has merely been the provision of an enabling environment such as security, programme coordination and policy formulation (Ruhiu 2007). Similarly, Community Based Tourism Enterprises (CBTE’s) in Uganda rely predominantly on donor funding. The Mgahinga Bwindi community project was established with funds from the World BANK (Mujuni et al. 2003). Moreover, the two major associations Uganda Community Tourism experience (UCOTA) and (NACOBTA) in charge of promoting community based tourism in Uganda by providing loans and readiness to the local communities are predominantly donor funded. NACOBTA is 99% donor funded whereas UCOTA is 44.8% donor funded (Elisa et al., 2001) UCOTA empowers the local Ugandan communities to alter their get goinglihood with participating in sustainable tourism development activities. The association abets the local communities by aiding in the sale of handcrafts, providing accommodation, and tour guiding.\r\nFurthermore, both countries overhear witnessed amend livelihoods due to community based tourism activities. For example, the Mgahinga Bwindi Community confuse in Uganda has improved the livelihoods of the locals hold around Bwindi Impenetrable field Park. Many of the local population living nearby contract been employed as park rangers and ‘porters’ (labourers). The community has also benefited by dint of improved al-Qaeda including roads, education and wellness fac ilities. About 60% of the Mgahinga Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conservation sureness has been devoted towards development of local community projects (Adams & rhomb 2013).\r\nThe local communities in Kenya name also benefited from employment and improved livelihoods. The locals living near Mwaluganje, Sera Conservancy and Kalacha Bandas in Marsabit have benefited from schools, clinics and boreholes which have been built by these projects (Ruhiu 2007). Further, pro-poor tourism have assisted women with bead fashioning through provision of platform for selling their products. Whilst these benefits are encouraging, participation of the locals in both countries is soothe far from enough. Although some of the locals have managed to infrangible jobs and improve their livelihoods, most of them are remunerative low salaries, an equivalent of 30 pounds per month (Ruhiu 2007). This acceptedly doesn’t really improve their livelihood that much. In fact, critics have argued that community based tourism and tourism in general should not necessarily be relied on as a tool for poverty alleviation. According to them, tourism does not compete well with sectors such as agriculture which have higher potential of reducing poverty.\r\nEnvironment impact\r\nAlso, community based tourism in both countries have led to positive impacts on the environment. For example, in Uganda, KAFRED has created awareness among the local communities bordering wetlands about the importance of protecting and preserving the environment (Adams & Infield 2013). This has led to a reduction in encroachment and eucalyptus planting in the wetlands. Further programs such as the National Wetlands Program and Semliki conservation project which have risen from CBT activities have established crossroads by-laws organisation the use of wetlands (Adams & Infield 2013). Environmental education has played a role in ensuring sustainability of tourism. Similarly, in Kenya, involvement of the local people in tourism activities has led to reduction in wildlife poaching and destruction of forests. Community wildlife and conservation ventures in Kenya have played a major role towards protecting the environment and preserving wildlife (Jonathan et al. 2013). Environment abjection has foreshortend and conservation measures strengthened with the dish out of the locals who are employed as park ranges and ‘porters’. Community based tourism and eco-tourism have led the way towards responsible propel with important environmental benefits.\r\nDifferences\r\nHaving highlighted the similarities, it is important to identify some of the differences in community based tourism between the two countries. cardinal particular difference relates to the extent to which community based tourism is promoted. CBT in Uganda is yet hold to areas at bottom or on the forest reserves and national parks. close to all of the community projects are within or on the forest re serves and national parks. For example, the Buhoma Community Restcamp is within the weighty Bwindi Forest national park. The Mgahinga Community Campground project lies next to Mgahinga Gorilla National Park (Zeppel 2006). Others including the Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary, Busingiro and Kaniyo community project and the Ruboni community campground are located along or near national parks and forest reserves (Zeppel 2006). Community based tourism activities in Uganda continue to be circumscribed to areas lying within or along the national parks and forest reserves. This has been echoed by Industry operators who have highlighted ‘limited efforts to promoting community tourism at the national train’ as one of the main concern of tourism development in Uganda.\r\nIn stark contrast, community based tourism is promoted at the national level as evident with the opening up of new areas of possibility such as sports tourism, eco tourism, adventure safaris, horse and camel safaris, walk tours, and cultural tourism among many others (Cobb 2006). Further, programs such as the Enterprise Development Program have been implemented across the country to build the local capacity and integrate communities into tourism development activities. Such programs ensure the mobilisation of the community through seminars, debates, regional workshops and participatory trainings (Ruhiu 2007). Further the local communities are provided consultatory services on product development and market access which helps strengthen branch of their enterprises (Cobb 2006). This has been driven by the realization of the potential of community based tourism to reduce poverty, and multiplier effects of the tourism sector as a whole in driving the economy. Perhaps another difference that can be pointed between CBT in Kenya and Uganda relates to the coastal attraction. magical spell community based ecotourism ventures along the coastal region form the flourishing tourism sector in Kenya, Uganda being a landlocked country does not have any coastal attractions (Mulinda & Wilbert 2009). Coastal attraction features provides Kenya with an edge over Uganda(Wilbert, 2009). Beaches, sun-basking, the aquatic life at the coast and rich culture that includes performances, dances and the contemporary slipway of living of the coastal people make it a popular tourist destination. some other difference is related to the merchandising and progress of CBT activities. Unlike Uganda, Kenya has consecrateed more in market and progress of tourism activities. For example, last year, Kenya cyphered $34 million dollars for tourism promotion and market. This is in stark contrast with Uganda’s budget of only $90,000 (UIA 2014). While this may be seen as impacting on development in the overall sector, community based enterprises are also affected in terms of the number of visits and revenues generated from sale of products. Uganda’s funding of the sector perseveres very low despite the potential of becoming a multi-billion sector. The slow pace of tourism in Uganda can be attributed to the lack of individualism at the international level. While Kenya has promoted their visibility at the international level, Uganda is still lagging behind in terms of investing fully in promotion of tourism.\r\nWhile CBT in Kenya has self-aggrandising much high-velocity than Uganda, it has not developed as expect owing to many factors including in fair to middling funds for marketing and promoting tourism, transparency and political science issues, lack of marketing skills and absence of a system for ensuring true sharing of the opportunities and benefits accruing from tourism activities. For example, while Kenya’s budget for promotion of tourism may be $34 million, the Kenya Tourism Board receives only $6 million.\r\nFurther, funding remains a major problem in both Kenya and Uganda. Given that these countries are still developing, there are very limite d financial resources for supporting CBTEs. Even when these finances are coordinated in government budgets, they are lots inadequate to support CBT developments (Ruhiu, 2007). As a result, community based tourism has a lot relied on foreign investment which may lead to the rise of neo-colonial structures discussed above as foreign investors examine control of tourism resources.\r\nWhereas Kenya may be ahead of Uganda in terms of pro-tourism development, it is still far from being developed as it is still habituated to failures resulting from limited funding, poor infrastructure development, lack of formal education, political influences and inadequate pattern of the locals. CBT in Kenya still remains very low with lack of local theatrical performance in the workforce. While the industry may boast of over 500,000 jobs, the employment opportunities remain inequitably distributed (Cheung 2012). Most of the local communities are missing out on employment opportunities as these ar e being taken over by the outside workforce. According to a survey conducted by Bruyere et al. (2009), 64% of the local community members found the employment opportunities to be insufficient. Kenya’s community based approach to tourism development is still largely skewed to the interest of tourism (hotels, hospitality and service) with limited representation of the locals. There are also political considerations to take into account. For example, a neo-colonial structure has emerged within the industry as some foreign investors seek control of tourism resources. (Cheung 2012). This has resulted in well-disposed and political disempowerment of the locals as neo-colonial structures have made it increasingly difficult for them to participate in the planning and decision making process. Although there exist more opportunities for local entrepreneurs to invest in the industry compared to Uganda especially given the ongoing development agenda that encourages of the growth SMEs, a divide of power continues to relieve and disempower the local communities. The majority of Kenyans continue to live below the poverty line with the highest incidence of poverty occurring in tourist destination areas.\r\n5. Conclusion\r\nThe above has looked at the tactual sensation of CBT with particular reference to the situation in Kenya and Uganda. From the analysis, both countries seem to share certain commonalities and differences as well. For example, community based tourism is embraced in both countries and recognized as an important tool for reducing poverty. Also, both countries are heavily reliant on donor funding. Moreover, the locals in both countries have experienced return in their livelihoods through employment opportunities, and access to school and health facilities. Further, Pro-poor tourism has assisted women with bead making through provision of platform for selling products. Both countries have also seen improvement in their environments which has resulted due to community development projects and conservation ventures. In Uganda, programs such as the National Wetlands Program and Semliki conservation project have established village by-laws governing the use of wetlands. Community wildlife and conservation ventures in Kenya have played a major role towards protecting the environment and preserving wildlife. There are also sharp differences in CBT developments in both countries. For example, community based tourism activities in Uganda are limited to areas lying within or along the national parks and forest reserves. In stark contrast, community based tourism in Kenya is promoted at the national level as evident with the opening up of new areas of possibility such as sports tourism, eco tourism, adventure safaris, horse and camel safaris, walk tours, and cultural tourism. Another difference is that Uganda being a landlocked country does not have coastal attractions. On the other hand, beaches, sun-basking, the aquatic life at the Keny an coast and rich culture that includes performances, dances and the contemporary ways of living of the coastal people make it a popular tourist destination. Additionally, Kenya has invested more in marketing and promotion of tourism activities compared to Uganda. While Kenya has promoted their visibility at the international level, Uganda is still lagging behind in terms of investing fully in promotion of tourism. While CBT in Kenya has grown much faster than Uganda, it has not developed as expected owing to many factors including in adequate funds for marketing and promoting tourism, transparency and governance issues, lack of marketing skills and absence of a system for ensuring equitable sharing of the opportunities and benefits accruing from tourism activities. Nonetheless, the future of tourism in both these two countries lies in community based tourism. The potential of CBT to reduce poverty and make the sector sustainable is enormous. Not only can CBT help in enhancing biodi versity conservation but it can also generate income and bring economic growth to the local communities.\r\n6. References\r\nAdams, W. and Infield, M. 2013. Community conservation at mgahinga gorilla national park, uganda. bring for Development Policy and Management, Manchester. Akama, J. and Starry, P., 2000. Cultural tourism in Africa: strategies for new millennium.Africa foreign Conference, Mombasa, Kenya. Beeton, S (2006) Community Development Through Tourism, USA: Landlinks Press Bruyere, B.L., Beh, A.W. and Lelengula, G., 2009. ‘Differences in perceptions of communication, tourism benefits, and management issues in a protected area of rural Kenya’. Environmental Management, 43, 49-59 Butler, R., Hall, C.M. & Jenkins, J. 1998. ‘Continuity and change in rural tourism: mental hospital’ in R. Butler, C.M. Hall and J. Jenkins (eds) Tourism and fun in Rural Areas (New York: Wiley) 3-17 Cheung, H., 2012.Tourism in kenya’s national parks: a co st-benefit analysis. Kenya Giampiccoli, A. and Kalis, J.H., 2012. Community-based tourism and local culture: the case of the amaMpondo, vol. 10 (1), pp. 173-188 Frederic, T., Grace, B, and Celestine, k. 2011. Opportunity information: Uganda inclusive tourism. Jonathan, T. B., Nelly, J., and Nehemia, K., 2013. ‘An mental testing of Kenya’s outbound tourism to Ugandan destinations: towards re-thinking Kenya’s tourism product development and marketing’. Journal of Economics and sustainable Development 4(8). Kibicho, W., 2004. Community tourism: a lesson from Kenya’s coastal region. Journal of pass Marketing, Vol. 10, pp.33-42 Korir, J, Muchiri, J and Kamwea, J 2013. ‘Wildlife Based Tourism, environmental science and Sustainability of Protected Areas in Kenya’ Journal of intrinsic Sciences Research 3:3, Koster, R.L., 2007.An evaluation of community based tourism development: how system intersects practice. Priarie Perspectives Lopez-G uzman, T. and Sanchez-Canizares, S. and Pavon, V., 2011.‘Community based tourism in developing countries: a case study’. An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, vol.6 (1), pp 69-84 Mearns, K., 2003. Commmunity based tourism. The key to empowering the Sankuyo community in Botswana. Africa Insight, 33:29-32 Mujuni C.N., K. N., P. van de Kop, A. Baldascini and S. Grouwels 1., 2003. ‘Community-based forest enterprise development for improved livelihoods and biodiversity conservation: A case study from bwindi world heritage site, uganda’. In World Forestry Congress. Canada, Quebec City. Ndivo RM, Waudo, J N and Waswa F 2012. ‘Examining Kenya’s Tourist Destinations’ Appeal: the Perspectives of Domestic Tourism Market.’. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 1, 103. OECD 2012.Tourism Trends and Policies, OECD Publishing, UK Paul, A. 2004. Tourism in a rural Ugandan village: impacts, local meaning and implications for develop ment. Pergamon, New York. Pearce, D. 1992 ‘ ersatz tourism: concepts, classifications and questions’, in Smith, V.L. and Eadington, W. R., (eds), Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in theDevelopment of Tourism, New York: John Wiley and Sons pp. 18â€30. Rihiu, J.M., 2007. working capital for investing in community based tourism (CBT) †grants vs loans. National Ecotourism Conference Sanchez-Canizares, T. and Lopez_GuzmanL, 2013. Community †based tourism in developing countries: A case study Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal Of Tourism 6(1):69-84. Scheyvens, R., 2002. Tourism for development empowering community. Harlow: Prentice Hall Suansri, P., 2003. Community based tourism handbook.Responsible ecological social tour †REST project, Thailand. Tasci, A.D., semrad, K.J. and yilmaz, S., 2013. Community based tourism: finding the equilibrium in the COMCEC linguistic context setting the pathway for the future. Tang, K. 2013. Co mmunity based tourism. Singapore. Tefler, D.J., 2009. ‘Development studies and tourism’. In: Jamal, T. and Robinson, M. (eds). The shrewd handbook of tourism studies, London: quick of scent Publications Zeppel, H. 2006. Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and Management. CABI.\r\n'