an integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism on … · 2015-07-29 · 1998; ashley and...

An integrated approach toassess the impacts of tourismon community developmentand sustainable livelihoods

Murray C. Simpson

Abstract A key challenge in sustainable tourism is to develop economically

viable enterprises that provide livelihood benefits to local

communities while protecting indigenous cultures and environments.

Such ventures are difficult to assess due to a general lack of effective

assessment and monitoring methods, a lack of consensus about

methodology and the inability of some monitoring systems to

incorporate all elements of tourism impacts. This article presents a

structured integrated assessment approach to assess the impacts of

initiatives that purport to deliver net livelihood benefits to

communities living adjacent to or within the tourism destination. The

approach has been developed to enable generic use in different

geographical contexts taking into account a variety of aspects including

ownership structure, levels of employment, infrastructure, governance,

and sustainable livelihoods (SL). The article examines two pilot case

studies conducted in Maputaland, South Africa, to reflect on the

implementation and theoretical underpinnings of the protocol.

Introduction and conceptual framework

There has been a huge upsurge of interest in tourism that takes into account

the public sensitivities and concerns about the environment, communities,

and sustainability. The terms employed to describe such tourism philo-

sophies include ecotourism, pro-poor tourism, community tourism, sus-

tainable tourism, responsible tourism, and community benefit tourism

(Goodwin, 1996; Mowforth and Munt, 1998; Swarbrooke, 1999; World

Wildlife Fund, 2001; Reid, 2003; Hall and Brown, 2006; Simpson,

2008). Such neologisms are based on the premise that tourism in a

Community Development Journal of 23

& Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal. 2007

All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected]

doi:10.1093/cdj/bsm048

Community Development Journal Advance Access published October 17, 2007

generic sense should develop in an environmentally, economically, and

socially sustainable manner. However, it has been difficult to assess the

success of initiatives that aim to benefit local communities and the environ-

ment while also being financially viable (Ashley, 2002; United Nations World

Tourism Organization, 2004). One of the most problematic areas has been to

quantify the impacts of tourism on communities and local livelihoods.

Enhancing livelihoods and maximizing benefits to communities involve

the expansion and use of local labour, local goods, and services and also

developing appropriate and sustainable infrastructure, supportive policies,

and environmental strategies (Scoones, 1998; Department for International

Development, 1999; Long, 2004; Simpson, 2008). Positive livelihood

impacts include the creation of employment and economic opportunities

and benefits for individuals, households, and the collective community.

In addition, they include a wide range of non-financial livelihood impacts

that serve to decrease vulnerability, develop skills, improve access to

information, enhance and create new infrastructure, provide credit and

markets, improve food security, and strengthen community organizations.

Less-tangible livelihood attributes such as renewed pride, empowerment,

physical security, cultural benefits, optimism, and more participation in

decision-making are also integral to deriving benefits (Scoones, 1998;

Department for International Development, 1999; Ashley, 2000a; Ashley

et al., 2001; Simpson, 2008).

The broad concept of sustainable livelihoods (SL), on which the assess-

ment methodology described here is based, has evolved from established

perceptions of land, labour, and capital assets, as well as skills, social net-

works, and physical infrastructures stressed by concepts of a Sustainable

Livelihoods Framework (SLF). SL theory and approaches are based on evol-

utionary ways of thinking about poverty reduction, the way the poor live

their lives, and the importance of structural and institutional issues

(Chambers and Conway, 1992; Carney, 1998; Ashley and Carney, 1999).

From a conceptual perspective, participatory approaches to development

have highlighted great diversity in people’s livelihood objectives and the

strategies that they use to try to achieve them. Poverty analysis has also

identified the importance of a wide range of ‘assets’ in determining the

well-being (Department for International Development, 1997; Scoones,

1998; Ashley and Hussein, 2000; Ashley, 2000a). The theory of SL therefore

highlights the importance to the poor of five categories of assets: financial,

physical, social, human, and natural. The core concepts behind SL

approaches to development are that they aspire to be people-centred, holis-

tic, dynamic, and bridge gaps between macro and micro-development

activities. Most importantly, SL approaches aspire to build on existing

assets and to be sustainable (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Scoones, 1998;

of 23 Murray C. Simpson

Ashley and Hussein, 2000; Brock, 1999; Carney, 1999; Nichol, 2000; Turton,

2000; Department for International Development, 2001)

As a recognized and well-used qualitative tool in international develop-

ment, participatory methods of data collection involving the community are

one of the pillars of the livelihood assessment methodology described in

this paper. The potential benefits of participatory approaches are manifold

(Mukherjee, 1993; Bond, 2001), though much debated (Mosse, 1994; Nelson

and Wright, 1995; Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Brock, 2002). They have been

acknowledged by the World Bank (1994 and 1996) as an important instru-

ment for improving the quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of projects

and strengthening the ownership and commitment of stakeholders. Partici-

patory assessment, if appropriately used, retains its useful elements and pro-

vides a valuable tool by which communities or ‘impactees’ may express their

feelings and knowledge, impart factual information, and actively contribute

to the process of assessment (Mayoux, 2001; Chambers, 2002).

An SLF provides a structure for collecting, analysing, and integrating

detailed household and community-level data to assess economic, cultural,

and environmental components of the impacts of interventions on rural

livelihoods. Livelihoods analysis can also be carried out without the use

of a formal SLF by using the underlying principles of an SL approach to

impact assessment (Scoones, 1998; Ashley and Hussein, 2000; Brock, 1999;

Carney, 1999; Department for International Development, 2001). This

approach combined with a quantitative household-level survey method-

ology makes it possible to produce quantitative data and a differentiated

analysis resulting in deeper and more rigorous research.

An integrated methodology

The very nature of livelihoods and impact factors makes eclecticism a vital

characteristic when considering methods for the assessment of livelihood

impacts. A combined approach will assist in the understanding of house-

hold and community economy and assets (Nichol, 2000; Turton, 2000;

Department for International Development, 2001; Simpson, 2008). Although

the importance of, for example, surveys and the quantitative analysis of

data must not be overlooked, qualitative research methods lend themselves

to analysis in many ways. Insights may be conceived and be more easily

comprehended using a qualitative approach. Not all factors can be

measured quantitatively. Behavioural changes are more easily captured

qualitatively, as are issues of power structure, social justice, group

dynamics, exploitation, and domination. The description of processes is

also more easily accessible through qualitative analysis (Ali, 2002; Philli-

more and Goodson, 2004). The intricacies and complexities inherent in live-

Impacts of tourism on community development and SL of 23

lihood impact analysis demand the use of combined methods and also

enable the cross-checking and triangulation of findings, the complementary

analysis of results, the analysis of disparate opinions, and the ability to

go beyond considering immediate causality and look into perceptions,

directions, and sources of relevant change and impacts (Ali, 2002; Brieden-

hann and Wickens, 2002). The methodology described herein follows

similar participatory lines to those described by Ashley, (2002), although

significantly augmented by more detailed and sequenced participatory

techniques. The methodology also extends and enhances SL approaches

through the use of a household-level survey and the semi-structured inter-

viewing of a purposeful subset sample which, when integrated with the

livelihoods analysis, provides a robust assessment and monitoring tool.

An integrated assessment protocol can be divided into a seven-stage

process (Figure 1).

Review literature and collect baseline data

An essential starting point for any integrated assessment should be a

thorough review of the literature (including grey literature such as unpub-

lished documents and electronic data) and the collection of baseline stat-

istics for the purposes of contextualizing the assessment, drawing on all

available resources: electronic, archived documents in the field or admini-

strative centres of the study location. Information should be gathered

from general literature, tourism financial documents, environmental impact

Figure 1 Integrated Assessment Protocol for Measuring and Monitoring the Impacts of Tourism on

Community Development and SL


assessments, and any previous surveys for review and analysis of the local

context. The review should include general literature and empirical data

including previous relevant research results, financial data, environmental

impact data, historical survey data, community asset audit data, and any

plans relevant to rural communities.

For a chosen study site, a fine-scale analysis of policy, ecology, and socio-

cultural background should be carried out taking into account the nuances

of operation, structure, funding, stakeholders, and implementation. Poten-

tial determinants of the outcomes of a given initiative should be documen-

ted through the creation of SL matrices (Uganda Community Tourism

Association, 2000). These determinants may include factors such as the

value of wildlife or other tourist attractions, competition from alternative

tourist facilities, local population density, characteristics of institutional

and community structures, organizational structure of tourism initiatives,

the nature, spending pattern, and activities of tourists coming to the

study sites, degree of community involvement in the initiative, levels of lit-

eracy, skills and education in the community, patterns of employment in the

initiative, and alternative job opportunities (Ashley, 2000b). The presence or

absence of public/private partnerships and the differing roles of the various

actors should be documented, including the role of NGOs and whether or

not it is dependent on external funding.

Stakeholder analysis and key informant interviews

There is immense value in gaining qualitative information from key indi-

viduals within communities and from assessing the role of different stake-

holders in a given initiative. Typically, this information should be gathered

through semi-structured interviews that identify and assess the priorities,

needs, goals, and requirements of key people that may significantly influ-

ence the initiative and impact on the livelihoods of the community. These

key stakeholders could include community leaders, entrepreneurs, govern-

ment officials, NGO employees, and typical representatives of major

sources of livelihoods within the community, which are directly (e.g. craft

makers) or indirectly (e.g. hunters) influencing or influenced by the

tourism industry. To ensure a representative sample of livelihoods within

the key informant interviews, a purposeful subsample of individuals

from the household survey (discussed subsequently) could be chosen for

more in-depth analysis (Figure 1,2b). The results of these key informant

interviews can be combined with the data from the SL matrix to analyse

the roles of important stakeholder groups in the tourism initiative.

The livelihoods impacts specific to the initiative and distribution of liveli-

hoods opportunities and benefits should be measured and an analysis carried

out on the ways that informants respond to any livelihood enhancement


initiatives, e.g. changes in increased primary school education provision,

changes in health care, tenure reform, land/share allocation, enhanced

infrastructure, enhanced transparency and financial controls in benefit dis-

tribution, and any relevant conservation policies such as multiple land use,

game reserve-adjacent communities, and National Park-adjacent commu-

nities. Key informant interviews from the purposeful subsample should

incorporate a more detailed and in-depth analysis of household compo-

sition, income generation, and budget; individual and household receipts;

food security; livelihood capital; individual and household activities; liveli-

hood changes; and of who receives benefits and costs (e.g. gender, age,

poverty level) and how the household uses any income derived from

tourism that is earned individually and/or collectively.

Household survey (questionnaire)

A quantitative survey questionnaire should be designed to assess the

livelihood impacts of the initiative on the wider community. If designed

appropriately (e.g. a representative sample drawn from a rigorously

defined sampling frame) the data can be used to extrapolate the economic

and social impacts to the whole community. To enable ease of completion

of the questionnaire and to assist in the effective analysis of the data, a

ranking scale could be used for the quantification of attitude data, along

with a series of closed questions and forced choice questions to verify and

analyse the characteristics, perceptions, and requirements of the sample

respondents more easily. Likert data can be regarded as interval scale for

the purposes of statistical analysis (De Vaus, 2001). Adequate provision

should also be made for respondents to provide additional qualitative infor-

mation if they so desire, after completion of the structured questionnaire.

The initial survey of household livelihoods should determine household

composition, primary economic activity, education levels present in the

household, livelihood assets, duration of residence, food security, consum-

ables, budget, dependence on tourism, and other income generating activi-

ties. The survey should run concurrently with the participatory activities

outlined below.

Participatory processes

A number of Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA) techniques should be

continued throughout the life cycle of a project (in some cases, maturing

into long-term participant observation). Techniques that could be used

include: site transects; historical mapping; asset mapping; ‘H’ diagrams;

likes, dislikes, and changes ranking; priority ranking; and participant obser-

vation (SEI, 1998; Guy and Inglis, 1999; Ashley and Husein, 2000; Mayoux,

2001; Guy et al., 2002; Kerka, 2003). PRA would also merge naturally into


a forum through which the research findings can practically inform and

affect policy and implementation. It should be emphasized that this is not

designed to be a rigid template, more a flexible approach that can mould

and adapt to the needs of the researcher, the environment, and the project

concerned.

SL analysis

A key stage in the development of an integrated assessment strategy is to

conduct an SL analysis, underpinned by principles of an SLF and largely

based upon the qualitative information from the key informant interviews,

participatory processes, and the qualitative and subjective elements the

household survey. Typically, the analysis consists of a systematic series of

tables and matrices that outline the key impacts (both positive and negative)

of initiatives on rural livelihoods. Candidates for important impacts include

business and employment opportunities, collective benefits, capacity build-

ing, and empowerment, environmental and socio-cultural impacts, and

influences on policy and planning. The analysis provides results in a

form that can be readily compared and that can later be synthesized into

key impacts on livelihoods (Ashley et al., 2001).

Analysis of quantitative data

Qualitative and conceptual analysis of processes should be closely followed

by quantitative analysis and statistical modelling (where appropriate) of the

relative importance of the different factors that emerge as major determi-

nants of livelihood outcomes. Given the degree of socio-economic, cultural,

political, ecological, and environmental complexities involved, qualitative

and conceptual understanding of processes and linkages represent a funda-

mental first step. Once the qualitative framework is established and tested,

quantitative analysis and statistical modelling should help identify which of

a wide range of factors are relatively more or less important in enhancing

benefits for rural livelihoods in communities facing different combinations

of opportunity and constraint.

Modelling should centre on investigating the relative importance of

different empirical associations underlying the patterns observed in the

quantitative and associated qualitative data, in types and levels of

poverty, and the degree of reliance on tourism by the different cultural

groups in contrasting policy zones. These analyses should help identify

and evaluate the relative importance of factors affecting impacts and

allow prediction of broad qualitative outcomes across other combinations

of circumstances. Testing these predictions and evaluating their applica-

bility across a wider range of systems should ultimately assist the further

development of tourism in a community setting.


Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data

The synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data is important in order to

provide additional depth and breadth and a richer understanding of the

data gathered in the assessment process (McGee, 2000; Kanbur, 2001;

Briedenhann and Wickens, 2002; Lawson et al., 2006). The two approaches

synthesized have clear advantages, providing a level of triangulation, and

complement each other by sequencing qualitative and quantitative infor-

mation. In addition, they assist in the development and confirmation of

hypotheses and facilitate the explanation of unexpected or more complex

information (Chung, 2000; Marsland et al., 2000).

A number of approaches to synthesis can provide satisfactory results

across a variety of disciplines. The use of an SL analysis as a component

of the integrated assessment protocol contributes to the combination of

qualitative and quantitative data but at this final stage of the methodology,

the most appropriate technique for synthesizing qualitative and quantita-

tive data is narrative summary (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Abbott, 1990;

Carvalho and Whyte, 1997; Mays et al., 2001; Dixon-Woods et al., 2005;

Weed, 2005; Roen et al., 2005). The narrative summary approach involves

the ordering of primary evidence (sometimes selected) coupled with com-

mentary and interpretation. This approach is that it is flexible and can cope

with a large evidence base comprising diverse evidence types, and it is

more accessible to those who may use the findings of the integrated assess-

ment process (Roen et al., 2005). The key potential problem (lack of trans-

parency due to the selection of data) can be dealt with by reference to and

incorporation of data from the variety of assessment methodologies

employed in the integrated process and the use of SL analysis as an

additional instrument in the synthesis. Used in this way, the narrative

technique offers an effective method to deal with, analyse, and explain

the complexities and dynamics of impacts on livelihoods and their under-

lying intricacies.

Theory to practice: two pilot case studies in Maputaland,KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

The protocol was tested in two case studies in South Africa, Rocktail Bay

Lodge and Ndumo Wilderness Camp, located in Maputaland, north-

eastern KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) (Figures 2–5). Both are nature-based

tourism lodge initiatives operated by a private safari company and are

community–private–public partnerships; local residents and the park

authority became shareholders in the lodges at their inception. The com-

munities involved in each of the initiatives, the Mathenjwa in the case of

Ndumo Wilderness Camp and the Mqobela in the Rocktail Bay Lodge


initiative, are rural based, with approximately 1000 households and 200

households respectively in the community areas adjacent to the reserve

where the tourism initiative is located.

Figure 2 South Africa/Southern Africa

Figure 3 Maputaland, Northern KZN


During the first stage, the collection of baseline data/literature review,

considerable relevant data were gathered concerning both study sites

by making contact with stakeholders such as the KZN Tourist Board, the

local police, and health and education officials and obtaining archive

Figure 4 Rocktail Bay Lodge

Figure 5 Ndumo Wilderness Camp


materials, in both electronic and paper format. Informal interviews

were held with representatives of the tourism operator, and also with

the KZN Nature Conservation Service officials, the Inkosis and Ndunas

(community leaders), and the elders in each relevant community. Some

problems were encountered due to a lack of available data, such as the

exact population size, specific figures on health and education records,

income levels, and the number of people in households. This was to

be expected due to the location of the study sites and the rural nature

of the setting, but despite these constraints, an acceptable baseline

profile was established of the tourism initiatives and their respective

communities.

This initial profile was significantly augmented by subsequent stages that

were conducted simultaneously. First, in stage 2, following the further

identification of key informants, semi-structured interviews were held

with all of those identified at each study site. The interviewees are described

in Table 1, which combines some of the key informants, as they were

applicable to both initiatives. Qualitative information was gathered to

Table 1 Ndumo Wilderness Camp and Rocktail Bay lodge, key informant interviews conducted

Health Senior Sisters from four local health clinics (two in each study site)and the Malaria Manager at the Department of Health, Jozini

Education Chairmen of primary school governing bodies, principals of primaryschools, and nearest secondary schools in each study area, and headof languages department at Ndumu High School

Local Government District Councillor and Municipal Manager in Mqobela area, PartyRepresentative and Ward Councillor in Mathenjwa area

Community Hierarchy Inkosi (traditional leader/chief) of tribal authorities, and the Nduna(headman) of each community, the community executives (elders)of each community, and the Sangoma and Inyanga (traditionalhealers) in each community

Local Businesses Mangers of ‘Spar’ supermarkets, operators of ‘tuck shops, curiomakers, curio shop operators, market gardeners, welders, taxidrivers, and clothes and other goods sellers in each study site

Clergy Church leaders, Pastors of Christian Movement Church, ZionReverends in each community

Local Tourism Councillors responsible for tourism in each study area. Plusrepresentatives from KZN Tourism and South Africa Tourism

KZN Parks and Wildlife Officers responsible in each study area including conservationmanager of Manzengwenya Coastal Forest Reserve (Rocktail Bayarea) and manager of Ndumo Game Reserve

Police Superintendent and Captain responsible for the study areasLodge/Camp Mangersand Staff

Managers and staff at each initiative. Staff included tour guides,cooks/chefs, waiting staff, bar staff, maintenance staff, cleaning staff,and drivers. Plus senior directors of the private sector company,Wilderness Safaris

Infrastructure Representatives and departments of roads, energy, water, waste,and electricity


improve knowledge of the initiative, its operations, and its perceived

impacts on aspects of the communities’ livelihoods.

In stage 3, a structured household questionnaire was developed and split

into several thematic sections: house and household, health, education, food

security, savings, borrowings, household budget, and income, and lastly

facilities, infrastructure, environment, and general information. The ques-

tionnaire was translated into the local language, IsiZulu, to assist potential

respondents in their understanding of the questions and to better facilitate

the implementation of the survey and collection of relevant information;

the questionnaire was then piloted and further refined. A survey response

sheet was also designed so the information gathered could be recorded in

an organized manner. Since no official documentation existed, the sampling

areas (the communities) were surveyed and the location and number of

households were recorded and coded. Huts, houses, and compounds were

numbered and a random sample of approximately 17 percent of the house-

holds in the Mathenjwa community and approximately 40 percent of the

households in the Mqobela community were selected for the implemen-

tation of the questionnaire.

The quantitative data collected were subjected to analysis in stage 6 using

SPSS version 14.0 computer software. Questions were designed in the

survey document to give adequate opportunity for the respondents to

provide data on changes in level of assets, house construction, size, and

dates of acquisition of a range of possessions including furniture and any

consumer items.

Using the questionnaire, information on the levels of health and edu-

cation present in the communities’ households was gathered and assessed.

Questions were based on frequency of visits by household members to the

health clinic or doctor over the past year, month, and week. Data were also

gathered on the ailments or reasons that most commonly caused the visits to

the health clinic or doctor. Similarly, for education levels within the house-

hold, questions in this section were based on the frequency of school attend-

ance by school-aged household members in the past month and week. Data

were gathered on the number of household members who had reached the

end of primary school education (class seven/standard five in the Republic

of South Africa’s education system). The information gathered through the

questionnaires concerning health and education was supported by infor-

mation collected from the health clinics, department of health, and from

schools in the local area.

A series of questions were posed to the households concerning food

security. The questionnaire gathered data on each household member and

the average number of meals they consumed in a twenty-four-hour

period, and the number of meals consumed in the last twenty-four hours.


The survey also collected detailed information on what each of the house-

hold members’ last three meals consisted of, whether there had been a

change in the number of meals per day consumed in the household, and

if so when that change took place. The overwhelming majority of people

in both communities had an average of three meals in a twenty-four-hour

period and had consumed three meals in the last twenty-four hours. The

meals mostly consisted of a mixture of ‘pap’ (maize porridge) and beans,

or ‘samp’ (coarsely ground boiled corn maize), with one of the three

meals in an average twenty-four-hour period being tea and bread; less

common was the inclusion of rice and meat or rice and meat curry. In

both the Mathenjwa and the Mqobela communities, the average number

of meals consumed by household members according to respondents had

never changed significantly.

In stage 2b, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purpose-

ful subsample of individuals from the household survey for more in-depth

qualitative analysis. This subsample was selected by consulting the results

of the household survey; the individuals were chosen so as to be represen-

tative of the range of livelihoods present in the original sample of the com-

munity in the study site. These data were collated and tabulated along with

other qualitative information into livelihood matrices for analysis. In stage 4,

two participatory events were held in each community to provide forums in

order that as large a number and as wide a spectrum of the community as

possible were able to take part in the assessment process, articulate their

feelings, beliefs and knowledge. Prior to the participatory events to

augment an understanding of the villages’ characteristics and assets trans-

ects of the study sites were conducted by car and on foot (SEI, 1998).

Initially, transects were conducted in order to provide a familiarization of

the village and community areas. After the participatory events, further

transects were conducted to confirm the location and features of the

range of assets relevant to the SL of the communities.

The participatory events were attended by between 70 and 100 people on

each occasion (Plates 1 and 2). A number of techniques were used to enable

people to express and share information and to appraise opinions and per-

ceptions. The techniques included asset mapping and community mapping

(Mayoux, 2001; Guy et al., 2002; Kerka, 2003); the participants drew maps of

their community illustrating the position of those structures and locations

within the village that the members of the community perceived as assets

such as households, roads or tracks, water supply, schools, health clinics,

shops, community buildings, the tourism initiative, any boundaries, and

natural assets, for example, the sea, a lake, rivers, or a forest (see examples

in Figures 6 and 7). The maps enabled the collection of a range of qualitative

data such as people’s localities, resources, social institutions, wealth, and


status. To assist in establishing trends, events, and changes in the commu-

nity in a chronological framework on the reverse of the asset maps,

members of the community participated in a historical mapping process.

They created a timeline placing events that they perceived as important

Figure 6 Example of Asset and Community Map of Mqobela

Figure 7 Example of Asset and Community Map of Mathenjwa

Plates 1 and 2 Participatory Events in Maputaland, KwaZulu-Natal


on a horizontal line over the period of time since the tourism initiative had

commenced, including marking of the times when identified assets had

been installed in the area.

At the events, members of the community also participated in other PRA

techniques such as the creation of an ‘H-Diagram’, a variation of the

‘H-Form’ introduced by Guy and Inglis, 1999. A large ‘H’ was drawn on

approximately ten large pieces of flipchart paper along with a question

being discussed which was written in the top centre area of the

H-diagram, the question was simple and focused; in the case of Mqobela

community, one of the questions was ‘How do you feel about Rocktail Bay

Lodge?’. At the left end of the centre line of the ‘H’, a ‘not good’ or sad

face was drawn, at the other end a ‘very good’ or happy face was drawn.

A scale of 1–10 was then drawn on the horizontal centre line of the ‘H’.

The papers were distributed to small groups of people at the event and

the individuals in each group circled the number that they felt best

expressed their feeling about the lodge. Simultaneously, the members of

each group also wrote ‘good things’ about the lodge on pink pieces of

paper and placed them on the left of the ‘H’, they wrote ‘bad things’

about the lodge on blue pieces of paper and placed them on the flipchart

paper to the right of the ‘H’. Finally, the participants wrote ‘things they

would like to change’ on yellow pieces of paper and placed them in the

centre of the ‘H’ below the horizontal line (Figure 8). Comments in each

section of the ‘H’ were then ranked by the different groups in terms of

their priority. This technique was used for other simple questions focused

on how those participating in the events in the case studies felt about

Figure 8 An Example of an H-Diagram by Members of Mqobela Community


their village, reserve, and tourism initiative. After the events, the comments

resulting from the process were collated and grouped by themes; summary

results of the most common are given in Table 2.

The qualitative data collected in stages 2a, 2b, and 4 were combined in

order to complete stage 5, the Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis (SLA).

Drawing on earlier livelihoods analyses and discussion of livelihoods

including work by Scoones, (1998), Carney, (1999), and Ashley (2000a and

2002), the analysis was conducted by integrating the summary data into a

series of matrices focusing on categories of impacts on the communities’

livelihoods, assets, and activities that are characteristic of tourism

initiatives. Livelihoods Analysis matrices included: Positive and Negative

Impacts of the Tourism Initiative on Livelihoods, Key Impacts on

Livelihoods ‘Outcomes’, Barriers to Participation in Tourism, (including

lack of human and financial capital), and the Financial Earnings of the

Community.

For the purposes of this paper, summary results of the SLA showing the

impact of the tourism initiatives on community and individual livelihood

assets are given in Table 2 using a simplified matrix based on the five liveli-

hood assets identified in early work on SL (Chambers and Conway, 1992;

Department for International Development, 1997; Scoones, 1998; Ashley,

2000a).

Conclusions

With the continual growth of a more ‘politically correct’ tourism sector and

the challenges presented by climate change in developing countries along

with poverty reduction and community development objectives, it has

become increasingly important to measure more accurately the sector’s

impacts on communities and their livelihoods (United Nations, 1992,

1997; World Bank, 1996; United Nations World Tourism Organization,

2004, 2005, 2007; Simpson, 2008).

Two case studies were conducted to test the implementation of an inte-

grated assessment protocol presented. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, the case

studies showed that the tourism initiatives had affected community develop-

ment and the communities’ livelihoods and assets in both positive and nega-

tive ways. Although the positive impacts generally seem to outweigh the

negative, the financial benefits are limited to select a few households who

have members directly employed. Other livelihood assets such as physical

assets (e.g. infrastructure) have improved only marginally and these

improvements have not met the expectations of the community or the

tourism industry stakeholder. Improvements in human resource assets are

also limited to those few who have been trained for work in the lodges,


Table 2 Summary of impacts of the Maputaland tourism initiatives on community and individual livelihood assets

Negatives Positives

Mathenjwa (Ndumo) Mqobela (Rocktail) Mathenjwa (Ndumo) Mqobela (Rocktail)

Financialassets

No significant change since 2000 No significant change since 2000 Earnings for a minority asemployees

Earnings for a minority asemployees

Allegations of misuse of funds derivedfrom initiative

Allegations of misappropriation offunds by the community trust

Equity in initiative Some derived money from initiativeinto community trust accountEquity in initiative

Physicalassets

Quality of roads worsened – Mobile water containers ‘HippoRollers’ provided

Improved school building

Drainage worse Curio shop built Improved community buildingBuilding of airstrip

Humanresources

– – Training and skills development forminority

Training and skills development forminority

Women’s group making curios forlodge to sell

Casual labour opportunities

Naturalresources

Restricted access to game reserve Restricted access to coastal reserve Game meat provided by KZNWildlife authority available topurchase at reasonable rate

Some firewood provided by KZNWildlife authority available forcollection

Conflict with conservationauthorities

Quality of flora and fauna improved Sea turtle project

Improved cattle pastureSocialcapital

Lack of trust between communityadjacent to the initiative and tribalauthority located two hours drive away

Internal mistrust and conflict overpossible embezzlement of funds bycommunity trust and elite members

Community trust exists Community trust exists

Conflict with neighbouringcommunity

Children in the Wilderness camp,football tournament, and traditionaldance operated and sponsored;created strong community support

Strengthened social coherence

Strengthened community securitydue to Police Forum

Impacts

of

tourism

on

com

munity

develo

pm

entand

SLP

age

17

of

23

although some gender empowerment took place in the Mathenjwa commu-

nity as a result of the curio shop being built and a group of women taking on

the manufacture of products to sell there. Any benefits in social capital and

natural resource assets seem to have been offset by negative impacts such

as conflicts (internal and external), mistrust, allegations of misuse of funds,

and restrictions in access and use of the game and coastal reserves.

Identifying changes and impacts, establishing whether impacts are

present as a result of a tourism initiative or some other factor and what

the extent of those impacts may be is a challenging process. On examination

of the protocol in the wake of implementation at the case study sites, it is

clear that using the approach is extremely demanding on resources; time,

human resources, and financial support are all areas that require significant

commitment in order to conduct a thorough assessment. The livelihoods

approach and the steps outlined in the protocol provided a logical and effec-

tive framework within which to capture information; the combination of a

quantitative household survey, analysed with computer software (SPSS

14.0), and specific qualitative participatory techniques coupled with a

wide range of semi-structured interviews and a series of tourism-specific

livelihoods matrices took the analysis beyond the generalities of an SL

framework and scrutinized as far as possible the actualities of the effects

that the tourism initiatives have had on the communities and their livelihoods.

However, limitations were experienced in the availability and collection

of baseline data with which to evaluate the nature and the rate of impacts

and changes in the community since the inception of the tourism initiatives.

In addition, it proved difficult in some instances to categorically establish

the cause of an impact on the community and whether the presence or

actions of the tourism initiative affected the change in any way. The

‘knock-on’ or secondary effects of the tourism initiative were also difficult

to establish and attribute. In order to address these problems, comprehen-

sively long-term studies are required. The protocol should be implemented

again at the site after an appropriate period of time (between two and five

years) has passed to allow impacts (positive and negative) to become clearer

and hence the analyses more accurate.

The participatory events and techniques used in the approach were

devised to be inclusive, to offset the inherent elitism present in the commu-

nities due to the long-established tribal hierarchies and to ensure they were

spatially and temporally replicable. Although resource-intensive, it proved

important to pay particular attention to the techniques as a mechanism for

ensuring the representation of less vocal groups or individuals within the

community and to explore areas of consensus as some participants in the

events were initially quiet and uninvolved. Participatory techniques have

been criticized in the past for having technical limitations (Mosse, 1994;


Nelson and Wright, 1995; Cooke and Kothari, 2001), but the techniques used

in this approach were clearly sequenced, discussion focused, progressive,

replicable, and led to both evaluation and points for action being recorded.

Using the techniques in this way, combined with the household survey and

the key informant interviews, the approach overcame any possible technical

limitations. The events were highly effective in engaging the community

members, helped to embrace complexity, recognize multiple realities, and

prioritized the livelihood realities of the community. The second participa-

tory event in each community served as a validation of the preliminary

event, enabled the cross-checking and triangulation of findings, the comp-

lementary analysis of results and the analysis of disparate opinions.

As the approach requires considerable resources, methods for streamlin-

ing the implementation process needs to be considered. Further testing and

use of the protocol are required to ensure that the approach is replicable in

other geographical areas and with communities that are experiencing the

presence of other types of tourism initiatives such as differing operations,

ownership structures, and longevities. In the course of conducting more

assessment case studies to ensure replicability and consistency, strategies

for streamlining the approach could be developed such as flexible templates

for household surveys and semi-structured interviews, training pro-

grammes for practitioners and field workers, and clear sets of instructions

for conducting the assessment protocol stages. These strategies would not

only streamline the protocol but also assist in the reliability of the approach.

Further improvements to the protocol could also be made by the addition

of a final eighth stage designed to integrate the results specifically for action

plans, decision-making and policy development. This could be achieved by

conducting a gap analysis using the data collected in the baseline study

results from the analyses and those changes desired by the community

recorded and gathered in the participatory events. In this way, the approach

will not only evaluate the impacts of a tourism initiative on community

development and livelihoods but also identify specific areas for community

benefit and the role of stakeholders in enhancing positive impacts. This

approach could also assist funding reviews and the policy-making pro-

cesses of non-governmental organizations, governments, and private inves-

tors interested in benefiting communities through tourism.

Livelihoods are complex and multifaceted, and individual methodologies

to assess impacts on community development and SL all have their weak-

nesses and drawbacks. Tourism often requires the involvement of a range of

infrastructure and the provision of services from a variety of other industry

sectors. It comprises many different types of ownership structure, various

levels of employment, an assortment of secondary or ‘knock-on’ financial

and livelihood impacts on communities, and takes place in a multitude of


geographical and spatial contexts. A replicable, consistent, and flexible,

eclectic approach for evaluation using an integrated assessment protocol

is therefore essential to mitigate the variety of methodological weaknesses

and properly address the multifarious issues. A combination of qualitative

and quantitative methodologies collated and then culminating in a

thorough synthesis of the data would therefore seem to be the means to

approach the analysis of impacts of tourism on communities and their live-

lihoods in a more pragmatic way. The approach presented here provides a

coherent analytical framework with which to assess impacts, and where

other methodologies for tourism impact assessment have often focused

on questions to answer and information to collect, the approach presented

here also provides more structured guidance on how to collect and syn-

thesize information. If adopted, this integrated assessment protocol will

allow for standardization of tourism impact assessment.

Murray C. Simpson works at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment.

Address for correspondence: Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Dyson

Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK; email: murray.simpson@

ouce.ox.ac.uk

References

Abbott, A. (1990) Conceptions of time and events in social science methods: causal and

narrative approaches, Historical Methods, 23, 140–150.

Ali, Z. (2002) ‘Combining quantitative and qualitative research methods: lessons

learned from participatory poverty assessment in Bangladesh’, paper presented at

the Conference on Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in

Development Research, 1–2 July 2002, Swansea University, Swansea.

Ashley, C. (2000a) Applying Livelihood Approach to Natural Resource Management

Initiatives: Experience in Namibia and Kenya, Sustainable Livelihoods Working Paper

No. 134, ODI, London.

Ashley, C. (2000b). The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods: Namibia’s Experience,

Sustainable Livelihoods Working Paper No. 128, ODI, London.

Ashley, C. (2002). Methodology for Pro-poor Tourism Case Studies, PPT Working Paper

No. 10, ODI, London.

Ashley, C. and Carney, D. (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early Experience,

Department for International Development (DFID), London.

Ashley, C. and Hussein, K. (2000) Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact

Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa, Overseas

Development Institute (ODI), London.

Ashley, C., Roe, D. and Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro-poor Tourism Strategies: Making Tourism

Work for the Poor. A Review of Experience, Pro-poor Tourism Report No. 1, ODI,

London.


Bond, R. (2001) Rural Enterprise Development: Impact Assessment of Rural Enterprise

Development (RED) Projects, EDIAIS Application Guidance Note, accessed at:

http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/informationresources/application/

ruralenterprise.shtml, accessed on: 31 January 2007.

Briedenhann, J. and Wickens, E. (2002) ‘Combining qualitative and quantitative

research methods in evaluation related rural tourism development research’,

paper presented at the Conference on Combining Qualitative and Quantitative

Methods in Development Research, 1–2 July 2002, Swansea University, Swansea.

Brock, K. (1999) Implementing a Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for Policy-directed

Research: Reflections from Practice in Mali, IDS Working Paper No. 90, IDS, Brighton.

Brock, K. (2002) Introduction: Knowing poverty: Critical reflections on participatory

research and policy, in K. Brock and R. McGee, eds, Knowing Poverty: Critical

Reflections on Participatory Research and Policy, Earthscan, London, pp. 1–14.

Carney, D. (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make?, DFID,

London.

Carney, D. (1999) Approaches to Sustainable Livelihoods for the Rural Poor, Overseas

Development Institute (ODI), ODI Poverty Briefing No. 2, ODI, London.

Carvalho, S. and Whyte, S. (1997) Combining the Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches

to Poverty Measurements and Analyses, World Bank Technical Paper No. 366, World

Bank, Washington DC.

Chambers, R. (2002) Relaxed and Participatory Appraisal: Notes on Practical Approaches and

Methods for Participants in PRA/PLA Related Familiarization Workshops, Institute of

Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Chambers, R. and Conway, G. R. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts

for the 21st Century, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex,

Brighton.

Chung, K. (2000) Qualitative data collection techniques, in M. Grosh and P. Glewwe,

eds, Designing Household Survey Questionnaires for Developing Countries. Lessons from

15 Years of the Living Standards Measurement Studies, World Bank, Washington DC.

Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001) Participation: the New Tyranny?, Zed Books, London.

Department for International Development (1997) Tourism: Key Sheets for Sustainable

Livelihoods, DFID, London.

Department for International Development (1999) Tourism and Poverty Elimination:

Untapped Potential, Briefing Paper, DFID, London.

Department for International Development (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods.

Guidance Sheets, accessed at: www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidanceSheets.html#6,

accessed on 21 November 2006.

De Vaus, D. A. (2001) Research Design in Social Research, Sage, London.

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B. and Sutton, A. (2005) Synthesising

qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods, Journal of Health

Services Research and Policy, 10 (1), 45–53.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Goodwin, H. (1996) In pursuit of ecotourism, Biodiversity and Conservation, 5 (3),

277–291.


Guy, S. and Inglis, A. (1999) Tips for Trainers: Introducing the ‘H-form’ – a Method for

Monitoring and Evaluation, PLA Notes Issue 34, IIED, London, pp. 84–87.

Guy, T., Fuller, D. and Pletsch, C. (2002) Asset Mapping: a Handbook, Canadian Rural

Partnership, Ottawa, Ontario, accessed at: http://www.rural.gc.ca/conference/

documents/mapping_e.phtml

Hall, D. and Brown, F. (eds) (2006) Tourism and Welfare: Ethics, Responsibility and

Sustained Well-being, CABI, Wallingford.

Kanbur, R. (2001) Qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal: the state of play and

some questions, in R. Kanbur, ed., Qualitative and Quantitative Poverty Appraisal:

Complementarities, Tensions and the Way Forward, Cornell University, pp. 17–21.

Kerka, S. (2003) Community Asset Mapping, Educational Resources Information

Centre (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education, Trends

and Issues Alert No. 47, accessed at: http://www.cete.org/acve/docs/tia00115.pdf

Lawson, D., McKay, A. and Okidi, J. (2006) Poverty persistence and transitions in

Uganda: a combined qualitative and quantitative analysis, Journal of Development

Studies, 42 (7), 1225–1251.

Long, S. A. (ed.) (2004) Livelihoods and Changing Natural Resource Management Activities

in Namibia, Wildlife Integration for Livelihood Diversification (WILD) Project,

Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia.

Marsland, N., Wilson, I. M., Abeyasekera, S. and Kleih, U. (2000). A methodological

Framework for Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Survey Methods. An output

from collaborative project between Natural Resources Institute and Statistical

Services Centre, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, UK.

Mayoux, L. (2001) Participatory Methods, EDIAIS Application Guidance Note,

accessed at: http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/word-files/ParticMethods.doc,

accessed on: May 2006.

Mays, N., Roberts, E. and Popay, J. (2001) Synthesising research evidence, in Fulop, N.,

Allen, P., Clarke, A. and Black, N. eds, Studying the organization and delivery of health

services, Routledge, London.

McGee, R. (2000) Analyses of Poverty Assessment (PPA) and Household Survey Findings on

Poverty Trends in Uganda, Mission Report, 10–18 February 2000. Institute of

Development Studies (IDS), Brighton.

Mosse, D. (1994) Authority, gender and knowledge: theoretical reflections on the

practice of participatory rural appraisal, Development and Change, 25, 497–526.

Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: New tourism in the Third

World, Routledge, London.

Mukherjee, N. (1993) Participatory Rural Appraisal: Methodology and Applications,

Concept, New Delhi.

Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (1995) Power and Participatory Development: Theory and

Practice, IT Publications, London.

Nichol, A. (2000) Adopting a Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to Water Projects: Policy and

Practical Implications, ODI Working Paper no. 133, ODI, London.

Phillimore, J and Goodson, L. (2004) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies,

Epistemologies and Methodologies, Routledge, London.


Reid, D. G. (2003) Tourism, Globalization and Development: Responsible Tourism Planning,

Pluto Press, London.

Roen, R., Rodgers, M., Arai, L., Petticrew, M., Popay, J., Roberts, H. and Sowden, A.

(2005) Narrative Synthesis of Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence: an Analysis of Tools

and Techniques, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Methods Research

Programme, London.

Scoones, I. (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis, Institute of

Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper 72, IDS, Brighton.

Simpson, M. C. (2008) Progress in Tourism Management: Community Benefit Tourism

Initiatives – A Conceptual Oxymoron?, Tourism Management, 29 (1), 1–18.

Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (1998) Participatory Assessment and Planning

for Sustainable Livelihoods, SEPED/BDP Draft No. 1, United Nations for

Development

Program (UNDP), accessed at: www.vulnerabilitynet.org/OPMS/getfile.

php?bn¼seiproject_hotel&key¼1140130220&att_id¼950.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management, CABI Publishing, Oxford.

Turton, C. (2000) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Programme Development in

Cambodia, ODI Working Paper No. 130, ODI, London.

Uganda Community Tourism Association (2000) Linking Communities into the Tourism

Market in Uganda: Heritage Trails Uganda (HTU), DFID, London.

United Nations (1992) Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development, 3–14 June 1992, Rio de Janiero, Vol. I, Resolutions Adopted by the

Conference, Resolution I, Annex II, United Nations, New York, USA.

United Nations (1997). Nineteenth Special Session of the General Assembly for the

Overall Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of Agenda 21, Assembly

resolution S/19-2, annex of 28 June 1997, paragraph 69, United Nations, New York.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (2004) Indicators of Sustainable

Development for Tourism Destinations: A Guidebook, UNWTO, Madrid.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (2005) Making Tourism More Sustainable:

A Guide for Policy Makers, UNWTO, Madrid.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2007) Tourism Will Contribute

to Solutions for Global Climate Change and Poverty Challenges. UNWTO Secretary

General Francesco Frangialli, Press Release. Madrid: UNWTO Press and

Communications Department, March 8.

Weed, M. (2005) ‘Meta Interpretation’: a method for the interpretive synthesis of

qualitative research, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6 (1), accessed at: http://www.

qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-05/05-1-37-e.htm, accessed on: October 2006.

World Bank (1994) The World Bank and Participation, Operations Policy Department,

World Bank Report, World Bank, Washington DC.

World Bank (1996) Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries, World Bank,

Washington DC.

World Wildlife Fund (2001) Guidelines for Community-based Ecotourism Development,

Gland, WWF International, Switzerland.


an integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism on … · 2015-07-29 · 1998; ashley and...

Documents