ASSESSMENT OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS ON

RURAL LIVELIHOODS: BASIS FOR EXPLORING

ITS POTENTIAL FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION

A CASE STUDY OF KAKUM NATIONAL PARK IN

GHANA

YAW BOAKYE AGYEMAN

MSc. Thesis Forest and Nature Conservation Policy
February 2005
AV2005-14
 ASSESSMENT OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS ON
RURAL LIVELIHOODS: BASIS FOR EXPLORING
ITS POTENTIAL FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION
A CASE STUDY OF KAKUM NATIONAL PARK IN
GHANA

YAW BOAKYE AGYEMAN

Supervisor: Dr. Birgit Elands

Keywords: National Park, Ecotourism, Rural Livelihood, Impacts, Poverty Alleviation

MSc. Thesis Forest and Nature Conservation Policy

February 2005
AV2005-14

Copying or citation of this report or part of it is only permitted with the permission of the supervisor

SUMMARY

i
A common approach to protecting biodiversity has been the creation of parks and other
protected areas that exclude livelihood activities of rural communities. The key feature
of this strategy is that local livelihood is assumed to conflict with conservation. This
policy of exclusion resulted in denial of local people’s customary user rights to land and
resources and inevitably resulted in conflict as they asserted their historical rights to the
land and resources. Over the past few decades, political and philosophical debates over
the rights and needs of local resource users furthered the discussion on the necessity to
reconcile conservation objectives with human needs. Ecotourism emerged as one of the
options for integrating parks and people and providing incentive for conservation. In
Ghana, the situation was not different and ecotourism is promoted as a means of
generating benefits for local communities and achieving conservation. Although,
ecotourism is promoted to benefit rural communities living near national parks, there
have been little attempt to assess its impacts on rural livelihoods. Moreover, no
consideration has been given to how ecotourism could be explored as a tool for poverty
alleviation. Using Kakum National Park and two peripheral communities as cases, the
study assessed the dynamics of livelihood activities and impacts of ecotourism on
livelihoods of local people. It therefore aimed at gaining insight in ecotourism impacts
on rural livelihoods for the purpose of making policy recommendations for enhancing
benefits to local people and exploring ecotourism potential for poverty alleviation. The
study is imperative within the 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy and the wider framework
of Ghana Vision 2020.
Based on various definitions of ecotourism, the study focused on local community
element. The underlying argument is that, if local people benefit sufficiently, then they
will support conservation of the resources on which ecotourism is based. As a point of
departure of this study, a broad dimension was taken by assessing the impacts of
ecotourism on rural livelihoods as most definitions highlight local benefits ignoring
negative, direct and indirect aspects of ecotourism that are relevant to local people.
These impacts were assessed using livelihood approach of DFID. The approach
broadens the scope of analysis to a wide range of livelihood impacts and offers a useful
perspective for enhancing local benefits and also gives impetus for exploring the
potential of ecotourism for poverty alleviation within conservation context.
Kakum National Park was chosen as a case because of its many achievements including
high ecotourism revenues, awards and promotion of ecotourism livelihoods for local
people. Two communities, Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor near the park were
selected based on involvement in ecotourism, accessibility and availability of baseline
information. They were chosen for comparative purposes within the case. Six
informants constituting policy-makers and chiefs were selected and interviewed. Also,
thirty-nine (39) local people from both communities were selected based on livelihood
activities using snow-ball sampling. Semi-structured and open interviews were the data
collection techniques used. The data were analysed using statistical package (SPSS) and
content analysis. The results were presented in tables and charts.
The study showed that local interest in farming did not change despite implementation
of ecotourism. Although, observed changed in forest-based livelihoods of local people
occurred, people maintained farming either as primary or secondary activity. The

ii
importance of farming was clearly evident in Mesomagor where people supplement
farming activities with ecotourism activities. On the contrary, ecotourism is important
for people in Abrafo-Odumase where ecotourism activities complement and supplement
farming activities. In both communities, people not involved in ecotourism engage in
other activities in addition to farming. It was therefore evident that local people engage
in multiple activities to meet household needs and improve living standards. Regarding
ecotourism impacts, the study revealed that impacts on local livelihoods were positive
and negative, direct and indirect. People involved in ecotourism livelihood benefit in
terms of income. However, this financial benefit is restricted to relatively few people.
Impediments such as lack of interest, capital and access to tourists in the park account
for limitation in wide spread of benefits to local people. Moreover, expectation for
benefit from revenues generated from ecotourism never materialized as a result of lack
of supporting policy. The study has shown that they still have expectations for financial
asset. Revitalization of culture and local institutions as a result of ecotourism were
evident in Mesomagor. Social relationships were either improved or otherwise.
Apparently, relationships between some people improved in Mesomagor whiles in
Abrafo-Odumase people complained of sore relationships emanating from being WD
personnel or gaining from ecotourism. Economic gains from contact with tourists were
apparent in Abrafo-Odumase as local people have frequent contact with them.
Ecotourism impact on physical assets was significant but indirectly gained. Though
these assets vary between the communities, they enhanced livelihoods of the people.
Training was significant for local people involved in ecotourism but vary between the
communities because of differences in local situation. In both cases, training was
necessary for quality delivery of services to tourists. Lastly, it was apparent that human-
wildlife conflict persists because of farm damage and compensations are not received
for damage. This has contributed to local resentment towards the protecting agency and
wildlife. Despite this, local people contribute to conservation by reporting or preventing
poaching cases.
The study has shown that despite the development of ecotourism and associated
benefits, local support for conservation is uncertain because of many factors. Major
factors such as loss access to resources, crop-raiding, lack of compensation, knowledge
of maltreatment, denied access to ecotourism revenues, limited financial benefits and
developed antagonism towards WD and wildlife, account for the uncertainty. Inspite of
these, people still have expectations from ecotourism. The conclusion is that ecotourism
impacts are both positive and negative and impacts are not uniform but vary within and
between communities. It is highly recommended that the negative impacts be minimized
and positive ones increased. The approach must take into consideration the differences
between the communities. Despite the negative and positive impacts of ecotourism, its
potential as a tool for poverty alleviation is evident. As indicated, people’s ability to
escape from poverty is critically dependent on access to assets and different assets are
required to achieve different livelihood outcomes. This potential must be explored
within the context of conservation to legitimize local support for conservation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iii
I am highly indebted to Tropenbos International-Ghana (TBI) for the sponsorship of my
master’s programme and this study. I am also highly grateful to Mr. Samuel Nketiah,
Mr. Hans Vellema, Dr. K. Orgle and the Director of RMSC, Oheneba Agyemang
Amponsah for supporting my fellowship application and expressing continued interest
in my studies.
I wish to use this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. B.
Elands, whose advice and guidance were invaluable to this thesis. I must say it was
intellectually stimulating and challenging to work under her supervision. Also, I am
grateful to Dr. K. F. Wiersum for his very useful comments. I express my profound
gratitude to the entire staff of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Chair Group,
especially Dr. Andre Blum, M. A. Hoogstra, M. C. van der Zouwen, Esther Turnhout,
Barbara Kolijn and Yasmi Yurdi, for their diverse supports and encouragements during
my academic pursuit in Wageningen University.
My sincere gratefulness goes to Haske Vanvlokhoven, Joana Ameyaw, Dickson Adjei
Sekyi, Kwame Oduro and Lawrence Damyang for their role in shaping my ideas. I must
admit that this study would not have been realized without the role of many
organizations and other persons. I am most grateful to Wildlife Division, Ghana
Heritage and Conservation Trust and Conservation International. Especially, I am
indebted to Mr. Mike Adu-Nsiah of WD, Nana Okyeame Ampadu-Agyei of CI, Mr.
Franscis Cobbinah of GHCT, Mr. Cletus Nateg, Senior Wildlife Officer at KCA and
Mr. Moses Sam of WD for their administrative support and providing valuable
information for my thesis. I also express appreciation to the chiefs and people of
Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor whose cooperation made this study a success.
Especially, I am grateful to Agyeman Bediako of Forest Service Division, Cape Coast,
who provided for my entire stay in Abrafo-Odumase. Many thanks go to Bismark and
his ‘Kukyekukyeku Bamboo Orchestra’ members for their cooperation.
The list of people I would like to acknowledge will run into pages. However, I cannot
complete this section without expressing my sincere gratitude to Frank Adomako
Kwabia for his support and companionship during the fieldwork. Also, I acknowledge
Mr. Affum Baffoe of RMSC, Clare Brogan and Dorcas Lartey, whose support and
inspiration made this study a success. My stay in Wageningen has been more exciting
with friends and colleagues from different cultural background. I express my warmest
gratitude and farewell especially to Rizki Parmana, Nasmus Sadat, Anouska Plasmeijer,
Negassa Alemayehu, Dian Sukmajaya and Chantal van Ham. Finally, my loveliest
appreciation goes to my family back in Ghana and those who I could not mention their
names because of limited space. I am grateful for their inspiration, friendship, warmth
and diverse contributions to my studies. Finally, I am most grateful for the grace, favour
and wisdom of Almighty God for the successful completion of my studies. Amen!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................2
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT.........................................................................................................2
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS......................................................................2
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS.................................................................................................2
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...................................................................................................2
2.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2
2.2 WHAT IS ECOTOURISM?.......................................................................................................2
2.3 ECOTOURISM FOR CONSERVATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT...........................2
2.4 ECOTOURISM SUSTAINABILITY AND POVERTY ALLVIATION..................................2
2.5 CONCEPT OF RURAL LIVELIHOOD....................................................................................2
2.5.1 The Sustainable Livelihood Approach...................................................................................2
2.5.2 Explanation of Linkages within the Framework...................................................................2
2.5.3 Justification for Adaptation...................................................................................................2
2.6 IMPACTS OF ECOTOURISM ON RURAL LIVELIHOODS.................................................2
2.6.1 Impacts on Financial Asset...................................................................................................2
2.6.2 Impacts on Social Asset.........................................................................................................2
2.6.3 Impacts on Physical Asset.....................................................................................................2
2.6.4 Impacts on Human Asset.......................................................................................................2
2.6.5 Impacts on Natural Asset.......................................................................................................2
2.6.6 Impacts on other Activities....................................................................................................2
2.7 ASSESSMENT OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS.......................................................................2
2.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK...............................................................................................2
3. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................2
3.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2
3.2 RESEARCH STRATEGY..........................................................................................................2
3.3 SELECTION OF CASE AND STUDY AREAS.......................................................................2
3.3.1 Location of Kakum National Park.........................................................................................2
3.3.2 Justification for Selecting Kakum National Park as a Case.................................................2
3.3.3 Selection of Study Communities............................................................................................2
3.4 DATA COLLECTION...............................................................................................................2
3.4.1 Open Interviews with Key Informants...................................................................................2
3.4.2 Semi-structured interviews with respondents........................................................................2
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................2
3.5.1 Analysis of respondents’ data................................................................................................2
3.5.2 Analysis of informants’ data..................................................................................................2
3.5.3 Comparison of Study Areas...................................................................................................2
4. POLICY CONTEXT AND INFORMANTS’ ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS.............................2
4.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2
4.2 HISTORICAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND OF KNP.......................................................2
4.3 INFORMANTS’ ASSESSMENTS OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS.........................................2
4.3.1 Justification for Ecotourism Implementation........................................................................2
4.3.2 Expected Impacts...................................................................................................................2
4.3.3 Actual Impacts.......................................................................................................................2
4.3.4 Future Expectations of Impacts.............................................................................................2
4.3.5 Comparisons of Expected, Actual and Future Impacts.........................................................2
5. THE RESULTS OF LOCAL PEOPLE’S ASSESSMENTS OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS. . .2
5.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2
5.2 CHARACTERISTIC OF RESPONDENTS...............................................................................2
5.3 DYNAMICS OF LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES........................................................................2
5.3.1 Primary Activities before Implementation of Ecotourism.....................................................2

v
 5.3.2 Secondary Activities before Implementation of Ecotourism.................................................2
5.3.3 Primary Activities after Implementation of Ecotourism........................................................2
5.3.4 Secondary Activities after Implementation of Ecotourism....................................................2
5.3.5 Important Dynamics of Livelihood Activities........................................................................2
5.4 EXPECTED IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOOD ASSETS..............................................................2
5.5 ACTUAL IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOOD ASSETS..................................................................2
5.5.1 Actual Impact on Financial Asset..........................................................................................2
5.5.2 Actual Impact on Social Asset...............................................................................................2
5.5.3 Actual Impact on Physical Asset...........................................................................................2
5.5.4 Actual Impact on Human Asset.............................................................................................2
5.5.5 Actual Impact on Natural Asset.............................................................................................2
5.5.6 Impacts on Non-ecotourism Activities...................................................................................2
5.6 FUTURE EXPECTATIONS OF IMPACTS..............................................................................2
5.7 COMPARISON OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS.......................................................................2
5.7.1 Comparison of Expected, Actual and Future Impacts on Assets...........................................2
5.7.2 Comparison between Communities.......................................................................................2
5.7.3 Comparisons between Participants and Non-participants....................................................2
5.7.4 Comparison between Policy-makers and Local People........................................................2
6. DISCUSSION.....................................................................................................................................2
6.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2
6.2 DYNAMICS OF LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES........................................................................2
6.3 IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOOD ASSETS AND ACTIVITIES...................................................2
6.3.1 Financial Asset......................................................................................................................2
6.3.2 Social Asset............................................................................................................................2
6.3.3 Physical Asset........................................................................................................................2
6.3.4 Human Asset..........................................................................................................................2
6.3.5 Natural Asset.........................................................................................................................2
6.3.6 Impact on Non-ecotourism Activities....................................................................................2
6.4 REFLECTION ON THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK..............................................................2
6.5 REFLECTION ON METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................2
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................2
7.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2
7.2 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................2
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................2
7.3.1 Recommendations for Policy-makers and Managers............................................................2
7.3.2 Recommendations for Research............................................................................................2
8. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................2
9. APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................2
9.1 APPENDIX 1: ECOTOURISM DEFINITIONS.................................................................................2
9.2 APPENDIX 2: GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR INTRVIEWS...................................................2
9.3 GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW WITH INFORMANTS (AND CHIEFS)..........2

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2.1 THE SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS FRAMEWORK.......................................................................2

FIGURE 2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOODS ..............................2
FIGURE 3.1 MAP LOCATION OF KAKUM NATIONAL PARK IN GHANA..........................................................2
FIGURE 3.2 MAP OF KNP SHOWING ABRAFO-ODUMASE AND MESOMAGOR............................................2
FIGURE 5.1 PRIMARY ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS BEFORE ECOTOURISM ...........................................2
FIGURE 5.2 SECONDARY ACTIVITIES RESPONDENTS BEFORE ECOTOURISM ..........................................2
FIGURE 5.3 PRIMARY ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS AFTER ECOTOURISM..............................................2
FIGURE 5.4 SECONDARY ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOTOURISM.....2
FIGURE 5.5 FINANCIAL IMPACTS AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL..............................................................................2
FIGURE 5.6 FINANCIAL IMPROVEMENT AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL....................................................................2
FIGURE 5.7 IMPACTS ON RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL...............................................2
FIGURE 5.8 IMPACTS ON SOCIAL NETWORK AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL...........................................................2
FIGURE 5.9 IMPACTS ON HUMAN ASSET AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL.................................................................2
Figure 5.10 Future Expectations from Ecotourism................................................................................2

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1 OVERVIEW OF INFORMANTS AND RESPONDENTS INTERVIEWED..............................................2
TABLE 4.1 OVERVIEW OF EXPECTED IMPACTS...........................................................................................2
TABLE 4.2 OVERVIEW OF ACTUAL IMPACTS...............................................................................................2
TABLE 5.1 OVERVIEW OF RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS IN COMMUNITIES .........................................2
TABLE 5.2 OVERVIEW OF ECOTOURISM-BASED ACTIVITIES .......................................................................2
TABLE 5.3 OVERVIEW OF EXPECTATIONS FROM ECOTOURISM.................................................................2
TABLE 5.4 OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL IMPACTS FROM ECOTOURISM.........................................................2
TABLE 5.5 OVERVIEW OF IMPACT ON RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST...............................................................2
TABLE 5.6 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS ON SOCIAL NORM...............................................................................2
TABLE 5.7 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS ON SOCIAL NETWORK.........................................................................2
TABLE 5.8 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL ASSET ...........................................................................2
TABLE 5.9 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS ON HUMAN ASSET...............................................................................2
TABLE 5.10 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS ON NATURAL ASSET .........................................................................2
TABLE 5.11 OVERVIEW OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS ON OTHER ACTIVITIES...............................................2
Table 5.12 Overview of Future Expected Impacts from Ecotourism...................................................2

vii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CI Conservation International
CEDECOM Central Regional Development Commission
DFID Department for International Development
FC Forestry Commission
GHCT Ghana Heritage and Conservation Trust
GPRS Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy
ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Projects
KCA Kakum Conservation Area
KNP Kakum National Park
MLF Ministry of Lands and Forestry
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product
PPT Pro-Poor Tourism
RMSC Resource Management Support Centre
ST-EP Sustainable Tourism as a tool for Elimination of Poverty
TBI Tropenbos International-Ghana Programme
TIES The International Ecotourism Society
UN United Nations
WD Wildlife Division of Ghana
WTO World Tourism Organization
WWF World Wildlife Fund /World wide Fund for Nature

viii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
A common approach to protecting biodiversity has been the creation of parks and other
protected areas that exclude livelihood activities of rural communities. People are meant
to use resources outside of the park and plants and animals are meant to stay in the park.
However, many of these protected areas have been proposed on lands customarily
owned by local people and on which they often relied for products and services to meet
their livelihoods needs.
The creation of protected areas1 has been a central element in conservation policy since
the beginning of the 19th century. The key feature of protected area strategy is that local
livelihood is assumed to conflict with conservation (Salafsky and Wollenberg,
2000:1422). Rural communities are excluded from traditional activities such as hunting,
gathering of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) and building materials. This policy
of exclusion resulted in denial of local people’s customary user rights to land and
resources and inevitably resulted in conflict between people and protected areas as local
people asserted their historical rights to the land (Goodwin, 1996:284). The IUCN
definition of National Park clearly indicates the conservation of parks for inspirational,
education, cultural, scientific and recreation uses (Fennel, 1999:88 and Holden, 2000).
Therefore, as protected areas, they are dedicated to the protection and maintenance of
biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed
through legal or other effective means (cited in Weaver, 2001:65). Their creation
frequently entails an abrupt change in the local economies previously based on the
exploitation of various natural resources from these areas. Farming, fishing, hunting,
extraction of plants and their products, and other economic activities are generally
prohibited within national parks. ‘Under these circumstances, how are local people to
survive?’. The irony is that when the needs of local population are ignored, conservation
objectives of the protected areas may be compromised as widespread resentment may
exist among the local people because these parks are not created in social and economic
vacuum.
Over the past few decades, political and philosophical debates over the rights and needs
of local resource users furthered the discussion on the necessity to reconcile
conservation objectives with human needs (Borchers, 2004). According to Arnold
(2001:4), it has been widely argued that local people overuse, and hence degrade and
destroy forest resources because they are poor and have no viable alternative and that
this progressive erosion of the forest resource contributes to them becoming even
poorer. This downward spiral will only be prevented, if the poor are provided with more
attractive livelihood options, so that they move away from the destructive use of the
forest resources such as poaching. This led to the development of programmes to
introduce new livelihood activities in and adjacent to protected areas that would
1
Refers in particular to parks but are used interchangeably in this context.

1
compensate for the loss of use and encourage them to participate in the protection of the
resources. An example was Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP)
which aimed to achieve protected area conservation by promoting socio-economic
development and providing local people with alternative income sources (Brandon,
1996:10). The range of approaches under the rubric of ICDPs was based on the concepts
of sustainable use and development in the rural context (ibid.). These were in
accordance with the prominence of sustainable development paradigm and the
acknowledgement of development needs of communities within and surrounding
protected areas.
Ecotourism
With the emergence of ecotourism as a growing niche segment of the total world
tourism market, conservationists and governments have adopted the concept and used it
as a tool for achieving conservation and sustainable rural development in protected
areas as they feel it is necessary to meet local livelihood to achieve conservation
(Salafsky and Wollenberg, 2000). Emerging as one of the options for integrating parks
and people, ecotourism is used to provide a sustainable economic base for rural
development and this approach proposes the substitution of resource extraction in areas
where national parks have been established with nature tourism (Place, 1991:187). The
key feature of this linked incentive strategy is to develop dependent relationships
between local people and biodiversity where by they are given opportunities to benefit
directly from biodiversity and thus presumably have an incentive to stop threat to the
biodiversity (Salafsky and Wollenberg, 2000:1425). Many conservationist have noted
that, since tourism to protected areas tend to occur in peripheral and non-industrialized
regions, it may stimulate economic activity and growth in isolated rural areas (Boo,
1990). Also, it provides a highly strategic source of revenue to natural areas that need
protection and present a significant potential for realizing benefits in terms of
conservation of biodiversity. The British government’s Department for International
Development (DFID), notes that “preservationist attitudes to wildlife, the need for
wildlife to ‘pay its way’ and for local communities to be involved in conservation, has
led to an increase in nature-based tourism in and around protected areas as a mechanism
for biodiversity conservation” (DFID, 1999:13). The development of ecotourism has
become a prominent approach to address livelihoods concerns in a conservation context
(Borchers, 2004).
Ghana
In Ghana the situation was not different as protected areas pioneered, denied local
people rights including denial use and access to resources. These resulted in intensified
pressure on natural resources outside the protected areas, provoked long-term social
conflict, undermined livelihoods and caused poverty (Kotey et al., 1998). The
legislation established sixteen (16) wildlife protected areas including national parks
(MLF, 1994). These are under the management and jurisdiction of Wildlife Division 2
2
Wildlife Division is a division of the Forestry Commission and is responsible for wildlife management.
It was formerly Game and Wildlife Department.

2
(WD) of Forestry Commission. Traditionally, Wildlife Division pursued a
preservationist attitude towards protected areas. This approach mostly alienated local
communities and excluded opportunities for rural development activities and
sustainable use of resources (Symonds and Hurst, 1997). But WD have also been
promoting ecotourism as a means of generating benefits for the local communities and
achieving conservation. For example, at Kakum National Park, ecotourism was
developed to offer surrounding local communities opportunities to become more
involved in the management of the forest and at the same time realizing benefits to
improve their socio-economic livelihoods (CI, 2004).
Although, ecotourism is promoted to benefit rural communities living near national
parks, there have been little attempts to assess the impacts of ecotourism on local
livelihoods for the purpose of enhancing benefits to local people as enshrined in the
sector policy. Moreover, no consideration has been given to how ecotourism could be
explored to alleviate poverty within rural context. Ecotourism has the potential to
alleviate poverty considering the relevance of tourism in the country. The country is
seriously developing its ecotourism potential and has had a sustained annual growth of
12% in tourist revenue (Vieta, 1999:2). Since the 1980s, tourism in Ghana, has received
considerable attention in the economic development strategy. The country realized
steady international arrivals increased from nearly 114,000 in 1988 (Teye, 2004) to
650,000 in 2004 earning US$800 million 3. The tourist expenditure is estimated to reach
US$1.6 billion in 2010 (Vieta, 1999:2). Considering the general increasing growth of
tourism in the country and its contribution to the economy, the government need to
explore ecotourism as a tool for achieving poverty alleviation and biodiversity
conservation. The government has shown its commitment both within the sector policy
and national policy named Ghana Vision 2020. This research is therefore imperative
within the 1994 Forestry and Wildlife Policy which aims at “conservation and
sustainable development of the nation’s forest and wildlife resources for maintenance of
environmental quality and perpetual flow of optimum benefits to all segments of society
(MLF, 1994:7). The rural communities of national parks being an important segment of
society must also benefit from ecotourism to improve their livelihoods. The research is
also imperative within the wider framework of Ghana Vision 2020 4 which stimulated
the formulation of Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS) 5. The strategy recognises
a causal link between the environment and poverty. Accordingly, it focuses on the use
of environmental resources (in this case ecotourism) in the creation of wealth while
making sure that the environment is not depleted (Troni et al., 2004).

3
See http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=74933
4
Ghana Vision 2020 is Ghana's road map to achieving middle-income country status by the year 2020.
The basic objectives of Vision 2020 are to reduce poverty, increase employment opportunities and
average incomes, and reduce inequities in order to improve the general welfare and material well-being of
all Ghanaians. (See http://www.ghana.edu.gh/prospects/vision.html).
5
Is a medium term development framework aimed at economic stabilisation, employment generation,
social investment and poverty reduction.

3
Against this background, this research used Kakum National Park and two peripheral
local communities6 as cases, with the aim of gaining insight in ecotourism impacts on
rural livelihoods on the basis of which scientific and policy recommendations are made
to enhance benefits to local people and to explore the potential of ecotourism for
poverty alleviation. Using the livelihood approach7 to assess the impacts is important.
This is because the implementation of tourism impacts on rural livelihoods and that the
impacts may be positive and negative, direct and indirect, economic and non-economic
(DFID, 1999:53). The focus on livelihoods helps identify wide range of impacts
(defined as direct and indirect, positive and negative that matters to local people). It
offers a useful perspective for enhancing local benefits and therefore gives impetus for
exploring the potential of ecotourism as a tool for poverty alleviation in rural context.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

To reach the aim, the objectives and research questions of the research are stated as
follows:
1. To assess the dynamics of livelihood activities of local people caused
by ecotourism.
To achieve this objective, the following research questions were formulated:
a. What livelihood activities were undertaken before ecotourism?
b. What present livelihood activities are undertaken?
c. Which livelihood activities are related to ecotourism?
2. To assess the impacts of ecotourism on livelihoods of local people.
To achieve this objective, the following research questions were formulated:
a. What impacts were expected by the local people before ecotourism?
b. What are the impacts on their livelihood assets?
c. What are the impacts on their non-ecotourism livelihood activities?
d. What are their future expectations of the impacts of ecotourism?
e. What are the differences in expected, actual and future expectations of
impact?
f. What are the differences in impacts between communities?
g. What are the differences in impacts between people involved and not
involved in ecotourism?

6
These are Mesomagor and Abrafo-Odumase communities
7
The livelihood approach is a framework aimed at identifying interventions to meet the needs of poor
people.

4
 h. What are the differences in impacts between local people and policy-
makers?

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS

The thesis is structured sequentially starting with chapter two on theoretical framework.
This highlights the main concepts of ecotourism and rural livelihoods used in the study
and also forming the background of the research questions. Chapter three discusses the
methodology applied for data collection, choice of study area and the analytical strategy
applied. Chapter four gives the background to the implementation of ecotourism and
informants’ assessment of ecotourism impacts. Chapter five covers assessment by local
people which forms the main the results of the research. Chapter six discusses the
results in relation to the introduction and built-up concepts in the theoretical framework.
The last chapter being the seventh chapter forms the conclusions of the research in
relation to the aim and objectives and on the basis of which recommendations relevant
to science and policy are drawn.

5
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTRODUCTION
“For many rural households, farming on its own does not provide a sufficient means of
survival in rural areas. For this reason, most rural households are found to depend on
diverse portfolio of activities and income sources amongst which crop and livestock
production feature alongside many other contributions to family wellbeing” (Ellis,
2000:3).
This chapter is divided into five sections. Section 2.2 discusses what ecotourism is by
disaggregating and highlighting the elements of ecotourism based on various
definitions. It then lays emphasis on local community element as the focus of this study.
Section 2.3 discusses the applications of ecotourism as a tool for conservation and rural
development. Section 2.4 explores the potentiality of ecotourism for poverty alleviation
in the context of conservation. Inspired by Ellis’s statement, section 2.5 discusses the
concept of livelihood and the modification made for the study. Also, section 2.6
highlights the impacts of ecotourism on rural livelihoods with focus on assets and other
livelihood activities of local people. The impacts are interrelated but separated to
facilitate discussion. Section 2.7 describes how these impacts are assessed using
livelihood approach as a basic tool for enhancing ecotourism benefits to the local
communities and providing basis for using ecotourism to alleviating poverty. Lastly,
section 2.8 describes the conceptual framework of the study.

2.2 WHAT IS ECOTOURISM?

There is considerable debate over what ecotourism really means and this is reflected in
the diverse definitions in literature since its inception. It emerged in mid-1980 as a form
of alternative tourism that emphasized the well-being of the natural environment while
simultaneously recognising the importance of host communities (Weaver, 2001). From
the viewpoint of Goodwin (1996:277), there remains little consensus about its meaning.
Moreover, the absence of a widely accepted definition of ecotourism is associated with
a lack of consensus concerning the distinctiveness of ecotourism and the extent to which
it differs from other forms of tourism (Boo, 1990). Weaver (2001:16) emphasized that,
since the emergence of ecotourism in the 1980s, it co-evolved with a number of related
terms, including nature-based tourism8, adventure tourism9, sustainable tourism10, and
alternative tourism. And all of these have been used interchangeably but erroneously
8
Nature-based tourism is any type of tourism that relies on attractions directly related to the natural
environment and ecotourism is a subset of it (Fennell, 1999 in Weaver, 2001). Other categories of nature-
based tourism include adventure, 3S (sea, sand and sun), captive, extractive and some types of health
tourism. Unlike ecotourism none has the requirement of sustainability or learning (Weaver, 2001) and
socio-economic components.
9
Adventure tourism is differentiated on the premise of having three components being; an element of
risk, higher level of physical exertion and a need for certain specialized skills to participate successfully
and safely in the activity (Weaver, 2001).
10
Ecotourism is a subcomponent of the field of sustainable tourism (Epler Wood, 2002).

6
with ecotourism and this is careless misuse and only serves to create confusion and
misunderstanding. However, the concept is distinguished from conventional nature-
based tourism by both its socioeconomic implications (Ross and Walls, 1999a) and its
potential to contribute to conservation efforts (Dharmaratne et al., 2000 in Ross and
Wall, 1999a; Goodwin, 1996:287). Also according to Linberg et al. (1996:543), many
experts involved in the ecotourism field assert that tourism should satisfy conservation
and development objectives in order to be considered ecotourism. In other words,
ecotourism is defined by its sustainable results being conserving natural areas, educating
visitors about sustainability and benefiting local people (Epler Wood, 2002:7). These
are recognizable in the various definitions (see Appendix I). A critical examination of
these definitions reveals a general agreement that ecotourism is characterised by three
(3) key elements being; nature-based, educational and local community elements as
explained below:
Nature-based Element
Ecotourism relies on the use of the natural environment and includes a focus on
biological and physical elements (Ziffer, 1989; Goodwin, 1996; Fennell, 1999; Weaver,
2001; Epler Wood, 2002; Borchers, 2004; TIES, 2004). Conservation, protection and
management of these natural areas and resources are essential for the sustainability of
ecotourism. It also involves generating funds through user fees to support management
and protection (Boo, 1992). This aspect is referred to as the biocentric perspective of
sustainability (nature-centred) (Weaver, 2001:12).
Education Element
Ecotourism attracts tourists wishing to interact with the environment to develop their
knowledge and awareness. The educational element refers to education, learning or
appreciation of the natural attractions which form the bases of ecotourism product
(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1987; Ziffer, 1989; Fennell, 1999; Weaver, 2001 and Epler Wood,
2002). This educational or interpretative aspect acknowledges the natural and cultural
values of a destination (Weaver, 2001:17). Local people and tourists travel to natural
areas to indulge in experiences with nature to instil transformation values (i.e. values
which through a learning experience with nature yield greater environmental awareness,
appreciation and respect for nature). According to Ross and Wall (1999a:129), protected
areas can be viewed as natural laboratories, living museums, retreats, havens, and
outdoor schools and provide unique, interactive opportunities for promoting
environmental stewardship for both locals and tourists and encourage appreciation of
natural areas which can result in environmental advocacy. For example ecotourists act
as advocates for the areas visited. This can help conservation in many ways such as
giving generously for conservation, willing to donate their time and energy to lobby for
or against policies or activities which threaten the areas visited or acts as ‘conservation
ambassadors’ and convincing other friends to visit to increase support for conservation.

Local Community Element

7
In this case, the emphasis is on ecotourism benefiting the surrounding local
communities in terms of employment, revenue and entrepreneurial opportunities (Ziffer,
1989; Goodwin, 1996; Fennell, 1999; Epler Wood, 2002; Borchers, 2004 and TIES,
2004). According to Weaver (2001:12), this aspect is anthropocentric (human-centred)
perspective of sustainability. Ecotourism stresses local participation, ownership and
business opportunities particularly for rural people (Epler Wood, 2002:10). If local
residents do not benefit from ecotourism through participation or the distribution of
financial and other benefits, there is a high probability that they will engage in activities
that will be detrimental, if not overtly hostile toward ecotourism. This is demonstrated
in numerous situations where locals have carried out poaching within protected areas
(cited in Weaver, 2001:191). Support for local communities is deemed to be crucial for
the long-term survival of ecotourism (Weaver, 2001:326). The argument is that
ecotourism can enable local people to gain from protected area and if they gain through
tourism they will support conservation by protecting the resources and also become less
likely to exploit them in other less sustainable ways (Goodwin, 1996:289 and Linberg et
al., 1996:543).
Boo (1992: V) argues that communities surrounding protected are generally overlooked
in ecotourism development and management and if they are not involved and do not
receive some benefits in return for their loss of access to the resources they may
compete for use of the resources. Most people agree that for ecotourism to succeed
natural resources must be protected and local resident must participate (i.e. used in
narrow sense in terms of benefits). The issue as to whether this constitute sufficient
incentive to help safeguard protected areas can only be answered on a site specific basis
(Brandon 1996:11).

2.3 ECOTOURISM FOR CONSERVATION AND RURAL

DEVELOPMENT
Ecotourism is often used in combination with protected areas as an incentive for
achieving conservation and rural development. It has been widely recognised as a form
of nature-based tourism considered as a strategy to support conservation of natural
resources and at the same time promoting sustainable local development (Ross and
Wall, 1999a; King and Stewart, 1996:293). Philips (1985) argues that tourism provides
conservation with an economic justification, a means of building support for
conservation and a source of revenue (quoted in Goodwin, 1996).
In applying the concept of ecotourism to protected areas, the hope is to enhance the
formation of a symbiotic relationship between tourism, local people and natural areas
(King and Stewart, 1996:293; Ross and Wall, 1999a). Many conservationists and
governments see ecotourism as a form of sustainable use of wild resources and hence as
a way to enhance incentive for conservation whiles improving the welfare of local
people (Ashley, 2000:8; King and Stewart, 1996:294). Brandon (1996) claims that
through the provision of benefits and economic alternatives to rural communities,
ecotourism is considered a valid response to resource use conflicts in protected areas

8
where people are physically excluded from the very resource on which they depend.
The argument continues that in preserving the natural environment, it is vital to take
account of the interests of local people and to involve them in managing and protecting
the environment (Chalker, 1994). In Kakum National Park, ecotourism was
implemented with the belief that it could both be an effective conservation tool and a
successful community development model (Eagles et al., 2002:52).
On the contrary, Place (1991:187) asserts that ecotourism as a development strategy has
prompted debated over its perceived benefits and liabilities, and whether it’s net impact
is positive or negative. Reports indicate that inspite of the existence of a substantial
literature highlighting ecotourism potential benefits, there is growing number of case-
study research reporting its failure to achieve the ideal goals upon which it should be
founded (Ross and Wall, 1999a:123). In other words, ecotourism theory has often not
been successfully put into practice. For example, a study of twenty-three (23) protected
areas with projects designed to generate local economic development found that while
many projects promoted ecotourism, few generated substantial benefits for local people
(Brandon, 1996:11). Borchers (2004) asserts that as a proposed alternative, ecotourism
often fails to deliver on claims that it contributes to rural development and instead it
may be more conducive to meeting traditionally exclusionary conservation goals. In
many cases however, the term has been used extensively to promote destinations
without trying to implement any of the basic principles and this problem of
‘greenwashing has undermined the legitimacy of the term ecotourism (Epler Wood,
2002:12).

2.4 ECOTOURISM SUSTAINABILITY AND POVERTY

ALLVIATION
Ecotourism depends on natural resource base and its sustainability depends on the
protection of the resources. However poverty11 is seen as a major cause of
environmental destruction (Holden, 2000:166). Taking the global estimate, three
quarters of people in extreme poverty live in rural areas (Yuni, 2004:3). The link
between poverty and environmental destruction is emphasised by Elliot (1994) in
Holden (2000:166) in the following passage: ‘In the developing world, conditions such
as rising poverty and mounting debt form the context in which individuals struggle to
meet their basic needs for survival and nations wrestle to provide for their population.
The outcome is often the destruction of the very resources with which such needs will
have to be met in the future’.

11
Poverty is “…denial of choices and opportunities and a violation of human dignity. Poverty means a
lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and to
clothe a family, not having a school or a clinic to go to, not having the lands on which to grow one’s food
or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. Its means insecurity, powerlessness and
exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence and it often
implies living on marginal and fragile environments, not having access to clean water and sanitation.
(IMF and IDA cited in WTO, 2002).

9
Poverty alleviation through sustainable development is critical for the long-term
environmental well-being (Holden, 2000) and consequently the sustainability of
ecotourism.
Considering the increasing growth of tourism in developing countries12 (see Yunis,
2004), as indicated by its contribution to foreign exchange earnings, employment, and
Gross Domestic Product (DFID, 1999:9), governments see ecotourism as a potential
tool for poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation. Moreover, combating poverty
has been a central theme of United Nations (UN) conferences and summits, particularly
the 2000 Millennium Summit. The Millennium Declaration includes a commitment to
halve by the year 2015 the proportion of the world’s population whose income is less
than $1 per day (UN, 2001). The World Tourism Organization (WTO) is also
committed to poverty alleviation, a focal issue during the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2002. This led to the launching of the
“Sustainable Tourism as a tool for Elimination of Poverty (ST-EP)”. It believes that
tourism could be harnessed as a significant force for alleviating poverty as well as
environmental protection (Yunis, 2004). Cater (1994) claims that to consider the natural
resource base without recognising the inextricable link with human resource base will
however compromise its sustainability.
It is emphasized that ecotourism is often promoted as a solution to sustainable
development and brings development to more remote and hence poorer regions (DFID,
1999:11). Proponents argue that tourism has a number of advantages over other
economic sectors in terms of its potential to generate pro-poor growth (ibid.). According
to Ashley et al., (2001), certain characteristics enhance its pro-poor potential. These are
labour intensive based on natural and cultural assets and suitable for poor areas and
harnessing tourism for pro-poor growth means capitalising on these features whiles
reducing negative impacts (ibid.). Supporting this claim, DFID (1999:25) also add that
by expanding benefits and reducing negative impacts, there is high potential for
improving tourism impacts on the poor. Ecotourism as a tool can be harnessed to
alleviate poverty in the rural areas.

2.5 CONCEPT OF RURAL LIVELIHOOD

The concept of livelihood is widely used in contemporary writings on poverty and rural
development (Ellis, 2000:7). It is a useful concept for describing rural household’s way
of life. Simply defined, “it is a means to a living” (Oxford Dictionary). The concept was
popularized by Chambers and Conway (Ellis, 2000:7; Cahn, 2004:1). Their definition of
livelihood, with minor modifications has been utilized by several researchers and
organizations adopting rural livelihoods approach (ibid.). With a modification, DFID
(2004) defined it as “a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities
required to make a living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover
from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now

12
It is noted to be the principal export for 83% of developing countries and in 2001 international tourism
receipts accruing to developing countries amounted to US$142,306 million (Yunis, 2004).

10
and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base”. Based on this
definition, DFID adopted the Sustainable Livelihood (SL) approach which is a way of
thinking about the objectives, scope and priorities for development.
Ellis (2000) indicates that, most people especially in the rural areas obtain their means
of livelihood from their immediate environment. Inferring from this premise, it is
apparent that rural livelihood in forest fringe communities generally hinges around
agricultural production and direct dependence on forestry resources and activities
(Aduse-Poku et al. 2003). Rural livelihood options found in Ghana include farming
(crop production and animal rearing), gathering, hunting, trading, craft making, and
public or civil service (ibid.). In the ecotourism industry, livelihood activities offered
include food stands, restaurants, guiding services, vehicle rentals, taxis and craft
producers and vendors (Wood, 2002:29). These types of service are most offered by the
local community members and play a crucial role in the success of the ecotourism and
its ability to benefit local communities (ibid.).

2.5.1 The Sustainable Livelihood Approach

DFID is committed to eliminating poverty and signed up to the International

Development Target of reducing by one-half the proportion of people living in extreme
poverty by 2015. It adopted the livelihood approach as a means of achieving this goal.
The livelihood approach is based on the concept of sustainable livelihood and is
essentially a way of putting people at the centre of development thereby increasing the
effectiveness of development assistance (DFID, 2004). The approach consists of a
conceptual framework (see fig. 2.1). This framework is important because it is people-
centred and was developed to understand and analyse the livelihoods of the poor (DFID,
2004). It is made up of subcomponents which are vulnerability context, livelihood
assets, transforming structures and processes, livelihood strategies and household
outcomes.
Vulnerability Context
The vulnerability context frames the external environment in which people exist.
People’s livelihoods and the wider availability of assets are fundamentally affected by
critical trends (i.e. population trends, resource trends, national/international economic
trends, trends in governance and technological trends), shocks (i.e. human health
shocks, natural shocks, economic shocks, conflict and crop/livestock health shocks) and
seasonality (i.e. of prices, production, health, and employment opportunities). DFID
(2004) asserts that, the factors that make up the vulnerability context are important
because they have direct impact upon people’s asset status and the options that are
opened to them in pursuit of beneficial livelihood outcomes however they are beyond
the control of the people. And most externally-driven change in the vulnerability
context is a product of activity at the level of Transforming Structures and Processes
(ibid.).

11
Source: DFID (2004)

Figure 2.1 The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Livelihood Assets

The livelihoods assets form the building blocks upon which people draw for their
livelihoods or to develop activities (DFID, 2004; Ashley, 2000:13). The livelihood
framework suggests an asset portfolio of five different types as highlighted in the
definition. These are distinguished as:
Financial Asset
Financial asset denotes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood
objectives. This includes savings (cash), credit (from formal and informal sources), as
well as inflows (state transfers and remittances) (DFID, 2004).
Social Asset
It refers to social resources, upon which people draw in pursuit of their livelihoods.
These include relationships of trust, social norms, networks and membership of groups.

Physical Asset
DFID (2004) notes that physical asset is needed to support livelihoods. It comprises
infrastructure and producer goods. Infrastructure consists of changes to the physical
environment that help people to meet their basic needs and to be more productive.

12
These include affordable transport (road), secure shelter and building, adequate water
supply and sanitation, clean affordable energy, and access to information. Producer
goods are the tools and equipment that people use to function more productively.
Human Asset
This represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health that together
enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood
objectives (DFID, 2004).
Natural asset
This includes land, water, forests, marine resources, air quality, erosion protection, and
biodiversity (DFID, 2004). These are very important to those who derive all or part of
their livelihoods from resource-based activities (e.g. farming, fishing, gathering in
forests, etc.).
Transforming Structures and Processes

DFID (2004) refers to structures in the framework as the organizations, both private and
public those set and implement policy and legislation, deliver services, purchase, and
trade and perform all manner of other functions that affect livelihoods. Structures are
important because they make processes function. Also, it refers to processes as the
policies, laws, culture, institutions and power relation which determine the way in
which structures and individuals operate and interact.
Livelihood Strategies and Outcomes

The livelihood strategy is overarching term used to denote range and combination of
activities and choices that people make/undertake in order to achieve their livelihood
goals. It is therefore a set of decisions and activities for achieving desirable livelihood
outcomes (DFID, 2004). This can include farming, non-farming activities, wage labour
(either in farming or other activities), migration and remittances.

2.5.2 Explanation of Linkages within the Framework

The framework views people as operating in a context of vulnerability. Within this

context, they have access to certain assets (i.e. poverty reducing factors). The starting
point is the vulnerability context within which people operate. The next focus is the
assets that people draw on for their livelihoods. These assets interact with policies,
institutions and processes in shaping the choice of livelihood strategies. These in turn
shape the livelihood outcomes. However, those outcomes are not necessarily the end
point, as they feed back into the future asset base.
Also, the linkages between the various subcomponents within the frame are two-way
relationship (DFID, 2004). In the assets and the vulnerability context, assets are both
destroyed and/or created as a result of the trends, shocks and seasonality of the
vulnerability context. There is direct feedback to the vulnerability context from the

13
transforming structures. An example given is that when policies are established and
implemented through structures, they can help cushion the impact of external shocks.
Institutions can absolutely restrict people’s choice of livelihood strategies. Most
common are policies and regulations that affect the attractiveness of particular
livelihood choices through their impact upon expected returns. There may also be a
direct impact on livelihood outcomes. For example, responsive political structures that
implement pro-poor policies, including extending social services into the areas in which
the poor live, can significantly increase people’s sense of well-being. They can also help
reduce vulnerability through the provision of social safety nets.
There is feedback arrow in the framework between livelihood outcomes and livelihood
assets, the two being linked through livelihood strategies. For example, a person may
choose to reinvest most or all of any increased income in assets, with a view to
catalyzing a virtuous circle of asset accumulation and increased income. In the assets
and transforming structures and processes, these elements affect the assets by creating
assets through government policy which may invest in basic infrastructure or existence
of local institutions that may determine access such as ownership rights or regulating
access to common resources. Assets and livelihood strategies linkage shows that those
with more assets tend to have a greater range of options and an ability to switch between
multiple strategies to secure their livelihoods. Assets and livelihood outcomes linkage
shows that people’s ability to escape from poverty is critically dependent upon their
access to assets and different assets are required to achieve different livelihood
outcomes.

2.5.3 Justification for Adaptation

The framework is encompassing making modifications necessary within the time

constraint and also to suit this study. It serves as a useful tool for understanding the
multiple and interactive influences on livelihoods, so that important explanatory factors
are not overlooked. Thus, it serves as important ‘checklist’ of issues to be considered.
However, not everything on the checklist can be included in this study. Modifications
made include;
Vulnerability Context, Transforming Structures and Processes
These subcomponents of the framework are highly salient in explaining livelihood
impacts. Considering vulnerability context for instance, DFID (2004) asserts that, it is
beyond the control of local people. Though, assets are influenced (i.e. created and/or
damaged) by this subcomponent, DFID (ibid.) argues that when policies are established
and implemented through structures, impacts from this aspect can be cushioned. These
reasons make it possible to overlook this subcomponent because this study aims at
enhancing impacts of ecotourism to local people. The structures and processes
subcomponents were also overlooked. Because this study essentially assess the impacts
of ecotourism on assets and other livelihood activities on the bases of which benefits are
enhanced to local people based on the opportunities enshrined in the 1994 Forest and
Wildlife Policy.

14
Based on these reasons, the framework was adapted to help make explicit what is not
included, but still important to understanding the impacts of ecotourism on livelihoods
of local people. Using the sustainable livelihoods framework involves acknowledging
complexities that can be hard to manage in a study, so focus is given to assets and
activities of the people.
Livelihood Assets
The livelihoods assets are also modified for this study. The asset portfolio of five
different types as highlighted in the definition was distinguished as:
Financial Asset
This was expressed based on the finding of Ashley (2000) who argues that tourism
generally generates different types of cash for the rural households and by different
people. These, she cited include regular wages for those with employment, casual
earnings from selling to tourists, profits from ownership of a tourism enterprise (i.e.
accommodation) and collective income earned by the community.
Social Asset
It includes relationships of trust, social norms and networks. This asset is expanded to
include culture of the people. The culture is an ecotourism attraction which generates
income for local people. It therefore serves as an important aspect of social asset.
Physical Asset
Only infrastructure such as transport (road), secure shelter and building, water supply,
and energy were considered. These facilitate and help people to meet their basic needs
and to be more productive.
Human Asset
This was summarily expressed in terms of training. This consideration assumed that
skills, knowledge and ability to labour are the results of training. Training enables
people to pursue livelihood activities and meet their needs.
Natural Asset
Only land and forests were considered. These are important to those who derive their
livelihoods from them.

2.6 IMPACTS OF ECOTOURISM ON RURAL LIVELIHOODS

Ecotourism is seen as a catalyst for local development and has the potential to promote
socio-economic and cultural benefits at local level (Brandon, 1996:1). However, it is
also argued that, like any agent of modernization it inevitably instigates changes (Wall,
1997). This is because when ecotourism is introduced, it has impacts on rural people

15
and that impacts can be positive and negative (King and Stewart, 1996:293) and
direct13and indirect14 (DFID, 1999:53). These impacts can be considered in terms of
livelihood assets (financial, human, social, natural and physical) and other livelihood
activities. Ashley (2000:17) asserts that the impact on assets influences activities people
do but there are also more direct impacts on other livelihood activities. Further, she
reports that development impact of tourism will not be uniform but will vary widely
within and between communities (ibid.).

2.6.1 Impacts on Financial Asset

Many parks are major attractions in rural and often marginal areas and do offer
significant opportunities. It is claimed that ecotourism can create jobs and income for
local people (Chalker, 1994; Goodwin and Roe, 2001:389; Langoya and Long, 1997/98;
Weaver, 2001:114; Goodwin, 1996:289). As a result, people living in and around these
protected areas often have high expectations of what tourism could offer them
(Goodwin and Roe, 2001:377). For example, Boo, (1992: VI) asserts that ecotourism
creates a variety of employment opportunities such as tour guiding, lodge operation,
handicraft production and sales. In Nepal, resident families of Sagarmatha National
Parks received income from guiding, selling local goods and clothes, and providing
accommodations for tourists (Wells, 1993 in Ross and Wall, 1999).
The financial impact on local communities has the potential of promoting conservation
support. For example, Durbin and Ratrimoarisaona (1996) report that 50% of revenues
from tourism were given to local people and this proved to be very effective mechanism
for making a strong link between local development and conservation in Madagascar
(cited in Goodwin and Roe, 2001:379). The earnings made by local people can make a
difference economically in terms of increasing the ability of local people to meet other
needs. In the case of Eselenkei community in Kenya, Ogutu (2002:253) reports that,
earnings received from ecotourism were used in various ways including purchase of
livestocks drugs and steers. These earnings can also be used within the local economy
creating a multiplier effect (Weaver, 2001:117).
In contrast to positive financial impacts, Brandon (1996:11) argues that though, the
most significant benefit for most rural communities from ecotourism is employment but
in most cases only small employments are created. In other words, relatively few
benefits accrue or are perceived to accrue at the local level (Linberg et al., 1996:566).
For instance, in Khao Yai National Park in Thailand whiles tourists generated about $5
million annually, little benefits surrounding communities (Brandon, 1996:11). As
argued by Goodwin and Roe (2001), most tourism revenue goes directly to the central
treasury. Moreover, the benefit can be limited to small group within the community.

13
The direct impacts refer to the creation and destruction of assets and activities from ecotourism in the
park (e.g. infrastructure development from the proceeds and crop raiding).
14
Indirect impacts refer to creation and destruction of assets and activities catalysed by the park (e.g.
purchases by the tourists of goods and services within the community and also when the tour guide is paid
and he spends his salary on food and housing).

16
This observation was made by Ogutu (2002) who notes the gains by few households in
Eselenkei community in Kenya.
There are other reasons accounting for the limitation of benefits by local people. Based
on the study by Goodwin and Roe (2001:386), they observed that the primary
difficulties for local community participation in tourism in the lowveld in Zimbabwe
were those associated with forms of enclave tourism. The traders could only access
tourists when they are outside of the national park as most of the time tourists are within
sites to which the local traders do not have access. Another difficult for local people is
start-up expenses which they lack (Weaver, 2001:118).

2.6.2 Impacts on Social Asset

Portrayed as a form of tourism, ecotourism is believed to have relatively less damaging

effects on local people (Brandon, 1996). This is based on three assumptions that the
scale of tourism is less with less impact, the type of tourists are different making
interactions less disruptive and the range of opportunities for local involvement and
benefits is greater. However, whatever the change, different cultures are affected in
varying ways and degrees (ibid.). Boo (1992) claims that ecotourism has the potential to
cause socio-cultural changes and these can be negative or positive.
Native cultures are often another attraction which ecotourism seeks to preserve (Lash,
1997:5). Noted as cultural tourism, it is highly compatible with ecotourism and tourists
see it as an ‘add-on’ attraction (Weaver, 2001:118). There are examples where it is
precisely the interest in culture in the form of local arts, music or symbol or language
that had been instrumental in reviving cultures (Brandon, 1996:17). For example,
Colvin (1994) reports that the interest tourists had shown in the culture in Capirona,
helped to revive it (cited in Brandon, 1996). Other argument is that ecotourism
inevitably produces changes in a destination and these can be negative if they involve
the disruption of existing social relationships (Weaver, 2001:122 and Brandon,
1996:18). There is also the creation of jealousy between groups due to discrepancies in
salary (Wunder, 1999:13).

2.6.3 Impacts on Physical Asset

It is claimed that ecotourism bring infrastructural development (Boo, 1990; Ziffer

1989). This is because it is dependent on infrastructures such as roads and other public
infrastructure (Weaver, 2001:190). Hence, communities can benefit in terms of
infrastructure developments. For example, construction of roads improved accessibility
to remote Bogani and Tangkoko national parks and provided the local people with
frequent access to urban services (Ross and Wall, 1999b:678). This observation was
also reported in Eselenkei community in Kenya where the community benefited from
improved infrastructure system including 70km earth network and this roads improved
community access to outside markets. Moreover, installed telephone lines improved
community contact with the outside world (Ogutu, 2000). Other physical assets such as
water and electricity are claimed to be encouraged by tourism (Chalker, 1994).

17
Boreholes created in Eselenkei community improved access to clean water (Ogutu,
2000).

2.6.4 Impacts on Human Asset

Ecotourism has the potential to provide environmental education, learning and

appreciation benefits (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1987; Ziffer, 1989; Fennell, 1999; Weaver,
2001 and Epler Wood, 2002). When local people indulge in experiences with nature, it
instils transformation values yielding greater environmental awareness, appreciation and
respect for nature. Environmental benefits of ecotourism include increased support for
protected areas that is potentially fostered among local communities (Weaver,
2001:105). Brandon and Wells (1992) report increase in support for parks and
concurrent declines in poaching, deforestation and other unsustainable activities in
vicinity of ecotourism-oriented protected areas in Rwanda, Niger, Madagascar, Burundi
and Nepal (quoted in Weaver, 2001:106). They also claim that not all protected areas
have reported success in fostering environmental responsibility among the local
communities because many did not perceive receiving adequate compensatory benefits
from park or ecotourism.
From a different perspective, Gurung and Coursey (1994:189) report that environmental
education through appropriate training and awareness raising campaigns were carried
out, targeting local people as part of ecotourism under the Annapurnar Conservation
Area Project. Training is important for product interpretation which is crucial to
ecotourism because of its association to learning and appreciation. When interpretation
of attraction is undertaken by a tour guide, expertise and ability are the two factors most
influencing customer satisfaction and formal training is needed to be effective for this
role (Weaver, 2001:152). In Papua New Guinea, Lash (1997:5) reports of education of
young people as guides. Further, the training also resulted in increased local
appreciation of the wilderness areas.

2.6.5 Impacts on Natural Asset

The establishment of national parks enforces use restrictions of resources and this foster
resentment on the part of the local people who are accustomed to such lands and
resources. In such situations, local people may become opponents of tourism and
undermine its operation (quoted in Ross and Wall, 1999a). Local resentment towards
ecotourism can also occur in conjunction with resentment over loss of resources to
protected areas or perception of inadequate compensation for these losses (Weaver,
2001:123). Often frustration and deprivation turn local people into law breakers in such
situations with poaching being a common consequence (Scheyvens, 1999:17).
One of the consequences of park establishment is crop-raiding. Tourism is blamed for
increasing the number of wildlife and hence for exacerbating wildlife damage to crops
(Ashley, 2000:18). In Kunene in Namibia, Ashley (2000) reports of increasing number
of wildlife which was regarded as part of a long-term trend perhaps enhanced by
tourism. Whiles the focus of ecotourism activity is on natural areas, adjoining

18
communities are affected by wildlife. Very typical of such areas, wildlife damages to
community assets such as farmland and livestock are often persisting problems. This
problem was evident in Kenya where lions routinely predate on livestock and elephants
damage crops (Scheyvens, 1999:44; McKinley, 1998 in Weaver, 2001:119). Crop
damage is severe on local communities near National Parks and tourism areas (Ashley,
2000:19). Ashley notes that detailed estimate for the mid 1990s showed that farmers on
the east bank of the River Kwando, neighbouring Caprivi’s three protected areas were
losing around N$ 20,000 worth of crops to elephants in a single year. Further, she
asserts that crop losses are a threat to food security and this clearly affect attitudes of
locals towards wildlife. Supporting livelihoods is not just about increasing the income
available to a group of people. In a study of livelihood strategies in Caprivi, Namibia, it
was found that minimizing wildlife damage was equally as important as expanding
opportunities to earn cash (quoted in Scheyvens, 1999).
On the contrary, in some cases, because local communities are benefiting, they
contribute to protecting the areas. In Uganda, Langoya and Long (1997/98) reports that
local people were taking responsibility for protecting the forest by members reporting
presence of illegality to the forest department or mobilising to prevent their entry.
Goodwin and Roe (2001:389) also report of other benefit to local communities such as
leased lands for lodge development.

2.6.6 Impacts on other Activities

The way in which tourism complement or conflict with existing activities has emerged
as a key theme in community and household discussions (Ashley, 2000:17). In terms of
complementarities, one of the most important ways in which tourism supports other
activities is that it strengthens households’ productive capacity by increasing skills and
providing cash for investment (e.g. investment of tourism earnings in agriculture was
evident in Caprivi). The new skills gained could be transferred to other activities (ibid.).
Local people are interested in ecotourism. Such interest, according to Ashley and Roe
(1997), are motivated by the promise of jobs, new business opportunities and skill
development (quoted in Scheyvens (1999:6). However, tourism as a new rural activity
for local people is perceived as risky, so it is seen as a chance for an additional activity
to combine with existing livelihood activities, not a substitute (Ashley, 2000:17).
Goodwin (1999:281) argues that ecotourism should supplement and complement
traditional activities of the area (e.g. agriculture) without marginalizing them or
attempting to replace them so that the local economy is strengthened and becomes less
subject to sudden internal or external changes. This is because those who depend on
tourism alone are vulnerable to collapse in their source of income (Goodwin and Roe,
2001). The vulnerability comes from a range of national and global events that lie
beyond the control of local people (ibid.).
At the same time, tourism can conflict with existing activities through reducing access
to natural resources, creating conflicting demands on time (i.e. time taken up by tourism
is significant enough to conflict with agriculture for people involved in tourism) and

19
exacerbating wildlife damage (quoted in Ashley, 2000:18). Goodwin and Roe
(2001:280) report that tourism conflict with farming activities of local people in
Keoladeo National Park, India, as the peak tourism season coincide with the busy
harvest of kharif (monsoon) crops. Goodwin and Roe (2001:379) made a relevant
observation when they contend that, projects that promote tourism as an ‘alternative
livelihood’ are fundamentally flawed in that they fail to recognise that rural households
rarely rely on one activity or source of income. Scoones (1998) points out that rural
livelihoods are based not just on financial asset but also natural, social, human and
physical assets and individuals draw on all these for greater security rather than simply
for increased income.

2.7 ASSESSMENT OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS

The livelihood approach suggests consideration of an asset portfolio of five different
types of assets. These are financial, social, physical, human and natural assets.
Accordingly, rural livelihood as adopted in this study comprises assets (financial, social,
physical, human and social) and activities to achieve household outcomes.
Tourism impact on livelihood may be positive, negative and direct and indirect (DFID,
1999:53). These impacts are assessed using livelihood approach. Krantz (2001) asserts
that, there is no unified approach to its application. It can either be used primarily as an
analytical framework for programme planning and assessment or as a programme in
itself. In this study, the approach is employed as an analytical framework to assess the
impacts of ecotourism on the livelihoods of local people. In assessing impacts of
tourism15 on rural livelihoods in Namibia, Ashley (2000:14) used modified sustainable
framework of DFID. She concludes that, taking a livelihood perspective helps identify
the wide range of impacts (defined as direct and indirect, positive and negative that
matter to local people) and offers a useful perspective on tourism for enhancing local
benefits. According to her, the livelihood approach contrasts with conventional tourism
perspective which tends to focus exclusively on economic, commercial or
environmental impacts and also contrasts with narrow assessment of local benefits
focussing on job creation and cash income (Ashley, 2000:7). The livelihoods approach
helps broaden the scope of analysis to a wide range of livelihood impacts. It places the
interests of people at the centre and is used to explore how tourism development
impacts can be expanded thereby reflecting better the concerns and aspirations of the
poor (Ashley, 2000:8).
This study focussed on the community element and assessed the impacts 16 as most
definitions highlight local benefits (positive impacts) ignoring negative, direct and
indirect aspects of ecotourism that are relevant to local people. As argued,
implementation of tourism impacts on rural livelihoods and the impacts may be positive
and negative, direct and indirect (DFID, 1999:53). Wall (1997) makes a relevant
comment when he contends that ecotourism like any agent of modernisation, inevitably
15
Tourism in rural areas managed by communities
16
The word ‘impacts’ is used in this context to cover positive and negative, direct and indirect
implications of ecotourism on livelihoods that matters to local people.

20
instigates changes and according to Weaver (2001:98) there is always the chance that
these changes will have negative and unforeseen consequences.

2.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

In the livelihood framework, assets are used and activities pursued to generate a range
of livelihood ‘outcomes’ (alternatively thought of as needs or goals). Ecotourism in the
park creating livelihoods opportunities for the local communities, has impacts (negative
and positive and direct and indirect) on the assets of the people, being indicated by the
arrow flowing to assets. These assets are used for activities. However ecotourism also
has direct impact on other activities being undertaken by local people as indicated by
another arrow flowing to livelihood activities. The basic axiom is that, if local people
benefit sufficiently, then they will support the protection of the resources in the national
park on which ecotourism is based, leading to sustainability of both the resources and
ecotourism. This is indicated by the arrow moving from the improved livelihoods to
National Park. The improved livelihood gives indication of contribution of ecotourism
to poverty alleviation. This shown by the downward arrow to reduced poverty.

Legend
Impact on rural livelihood
Other impacts and contribution
Legend
Other impacts
National Park

21
 Sustainability of
ecotourism

Impacts on livelihoods (local impacts)

Livelihood Used for Livelihood Generate Household

Assets Activities outcomes

Improved livelihoods in terms of increased benefits

Reduced Poverty

Figure 2.2 Conceptual framework of ecotourism impacts on livelihoods

22
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter entails the research strategy employed, selection of the case and study
areas, the technique of sampling and data collection and data analysis. The fieldwork of
the research was conducted for duration of two (2) months.

3.2 RESEARCH STRATEGY

The research strategy employed for the study was a case study. The application of a case
study as a distinctive form of empirical inquiry is of particular interest in this study
because it allowed gaining a holistic and rich understanding of how ecotourism had
impacts on local livelihoods and how these were assessed by the local people and
policy-makers. The strategy is useful and this is emphasized by Verschuren and
Doorewaard (1999:169) who argue that that having an overall picture may be a specific
advantage aiming at changing an existing situation. Yin (1984) notes that, in general,
case studies are the preferred strategy when “how” and “why” questions are being
posed, when the investigator has little control over events and when the focus is on
contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context. Moreover, multiple sources of
evidence were used in a process of triangulation. This is because the unique strength of
case study is in its ability to deal with a full variety of evidence- interviews,
observations and questionnaires (Saunders et al., 1997:145). Though, this strategy
provides very little basis for scientific generalization, it is however generalizable to
theoretical propositions (analytical generalization) and not to populations (Yin, 1984:
21) since it does not represent a sample. A process of triangulation was ensured
whereby key informants and respondents were interviewed and different sites
considered. This study also used different reports to compliment field data and put the
findings in context.

3.3 SELECTION OF CASE AND STUDY AREAS

3.3.1 Location of Kakum National Park

There are seven (7)17 National Parks in Ghana. Among these parks is Kakum National
Park which is located in the Central Region of Ghana (see Fig. 3.1). Kakum National
Park (together with Assin Attandanso Resource Reserve) is located in the Twifo Heman
Lower Denkyera and Assin Districts of the Central Region of Ghana. The park lies
between latitudes 05° 20´ and 05° 40´ and longitudes 1° 18´ and 1° 26´W. It has an
approximate area of 210 km2 and it’s approximately 30km from Cape Coast.

17
The National Parks are Mole, Kyabobo, Digya, Bia, Bui, Nini Suhien and Kakum National Parks.

23
Figure 3.3 Map location of Kakum National Park in Ghana

3.3.2 Justification for Selecting Kakum National Park as a Case

Kakum National Park (KNP) has attained many achievements since its creation. These
are awards, revenues generated, tourists’ attractions and local livelihoods. The awards
include Ghana Tourist Attraction of the Year for 1997, Conde Nast Traveler Magazine's
1998 Ecotourism Destination of the Year and 1999 British Airways Tourism for
Tomorrow (Omland, 2004). Also, since its establishment, visitation to the park
increased from zero visitors in 1992 to over 40,000 visitors in 1997 and the park

24
generated $75,000 in revenues in 1997 (WD, 2004). The main attractions in the park
include canopy walkway, bird and wildlife watching, visitor information centre, guided
tour, viewing platform and walking trails (Conservation International, 2004). Lastly,
local people are involved in ecotourism related livelihoods.
The selection of Kakum National Park as a case is important for the success of the study
as it serves as a model for furthering ecotourism initiatives to other nature areas. The
findings of this study will be valuable inputs for Wildlife Division of Ghana for
improving ecotourism impacts both in communities surrounding Kakum and other
parks. Within this case, two communities were also selected for the purpose of
understanding the variations in impacts.

3.3.3 Selection of Study Communities

Two communities near Kakum National Park were selected for this study. These were
Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor communities and they are involved in ecotourism at
different levels. The selection was based on three criteria, which are explained here
after.
Proximity and Accessibility
The communities are close to the park and easily accessible (see Fig. 3.2). These were
considered for ease of travelling into the communities to carry out the study.
Involvement in Ecotourism Activities and Tourist Encounter
There are three gateways18 into the park. Abrafo-Odumase is the main gateway into the
park and is located south of the park. Mesomagor is at the north-eastern part of the park.
Abrafo-Odumase corridor is the part of the park where the major activities, attractions
and facilities (i.e. guided tour, canopy walkway, visitor information centre, gift and
souvenir shop, and restaurant) for tourists are located and accommodation services are
also provided in the community. Consequently, tourist encounter is relatively higher. In
Mesomagor, the attractions include cultural entertainment by Kukyekukyeku Bamboo
Orchestra, accommodation, guided tour through the village and tree platform for
overnight stay and for watching forest elephants and other wildlife in the park. The
purposive choice of this criterion was to gain understanding of the diversified impacts
of ecotourism on the livelihoods situations in the two communities.
Presence of Baseline Information
There have been both ecological, economic and social impacts assessment studies of
ecotourism in the communities around the park including Abrafo-Odumase and
Mesomagor. These documents were accessed to provide background information on the
communities and also for the purpose of triangulation.

18
The third one is through Kruwa community which is located southeastward (see Fig. 3.2).

25
Figure 3.4 Map of KNP showing Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor

3.4 DATA COLLECTION

The data collection was derived using two types of qualitative interview methods; open
and semi-structured interviews. The different methods are described successively in
sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.3.

3.4.1 Open Interviews with Key Informants

Key informants interviewed were the Park Manager (Wildlife Division), the Programme
Manager of Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust19, the Director of Conservation
International20. They constitute policy-makers. Chiefs21 of Abrafo-Odumase and
Mesomagor communities were also interviewed (see Table 3.1). The informants
19
Is an NGO established to maintain project related infrastructure and financial sustainability.
20
Conservation International was involved in the design and development of Kakum Conservation Area
and also responsible for the building of the Canopy Walkway System and Visitor Information Centre.
21
They mainly confirmed or refuted issues. Their views on ecotourism impacts were also considered.

26
constituted the sources of information for gaining background information on
ecotourism and its impacts on local livelihoods of the communities.
Table 3.1 Overview of Informants and Respondents Interviewed
Community/organizatio Population(est No. of No. of
n .) respondent informants
Abrafo-Odumase 1500* 21 2
Mesomagor 600* 18 1
GHCT - - 1
CI - - 1
WD - - 1
*Estimate given by chiefs

3.4.2 Semi-structured interviews with respondents

Interviews were conducted with local people either involved or not involved in
ecotourism activities. They formed the core of this study. The identification of
livelihood activities, selection of respondents and the conduct of the interviews are
described below.
Identification of Livelihood Activities
Respondents were selected based on livelihood activities in both communities. The
livelihood activities were identified with the support of the chiefs. They covered
ecotourism related activities (i.e. activities undertaken for tourists included tour guiding,
selling etc.) and non-ecotourism (i.e. activities not undertaken for tourists e.g. farming).
This approach was limited because of the chance of introducing researcher’s bias by the
process of categorization. However, it allowed more focus on few selected and
manageable household livelihood activities.
Sampling of Respondents
The choice of sampling technique depends on the research questions and objectives
depending on what need to be found, what will be useful, what will have credibility and
what can be done within the available resources, particularly where qualitative data is
intended to be collected (cited in Saunders et al., 1997:142). Purposive sampling of
respondents was intended as means of selecting respondents but snowball sampling was
used instead. Eventhough the purpose of the study was clearly explained to respondents
and permission given by the chiefs to carry the study, it was difficult getting to them
without first being led to him/her by a member of the community previously
interviewed. The argument was that people are fed up with researchers since they have
not realized any positive changes from many studies done. They see these as wasting of
their time. A problem of the technique is that, respondents are most likely to identify
other potential respondents who are similar to themselves (Saunders et al., 1997:147),
and the consequence would be that other respondents with different typology of
livelihood activities would have been possibly overlooked. However, by the

27
categorization of the livelihood activities into ecotourism and non-ecotourism attempt
was made to select respondents engaged in these livelihood activities.
The selected respondents were interviewed using semi-structured interview. The use of
interview was to gather valid and reliable data which are relevant to the research
questions and objectives (Saunders et al., 1997:210). Southwold (2002) notes that,
interviews have the advantage of allowing respondents to express themselves in their
own terms and data from the interviews are comparable because the same topics are
covered with each respondent. Additionally, the interviewer can follow on any leads
that arise during the interview and it also provides the opportunity to probe answers
(Saunders et al, 1997:215). Given, the structure of the research questions provided, it
was more appropriate to use this technique to guide the interview within the broader
structural framework of the livelihoods framework.
The data gathered were in terms of time (i.e. livelihoods before and after
implementation of ecotourism) and aspects based on the livelihoods (i.e. assets and
activities of households). Interview topics were therefore structured to cover
respondent’s information, assessment of general changes in livelihood activities,
specific assessment of assets, non-ecotourism activities and future expectations of
respondents from ecotourism (see Appendix 2 for detailed list of interview questions).
Interviewing aids such as recording tape (later transcribed) and taking of notes were
used. These were supplemented with video recording of infrastructures and relevant
scenes, all to help recall the context and content of the interviews (Saunders et al.,
1997:346). In total of thirty-nine (39) respondents were selected and interviewed in both
Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor.

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS

Deductive approach was used. As suggested by Yin (1994), where use is made of
existing theory to formulate research questions and objectives, one should also use the
theoretic proposition as a means to devise a framework to help organise and direct the
data analysis (quoted in Saunders et al., 1997). Coding was applied to data and was
important in comprehending and managing data, merging related data drawn from
different notes, identify key themes or patterns, develop and/or test hypotheses based on
apparent patterns or relationships and draw and verify conclusions (Saunders et al.,
1997:340).
The analyses of the data from both the respondents and key informants were done
separately and systematically described below. Two analytical approaches were used
based on what and why questions under the interview topics for respondents. Basic
descriptive statistics using SPSS application was made for ‘what’ questions and content
analysis was also done for ‘why’ questions to understand meanings of the responses to
questions posed.

28
3.5.1 Analysis of respondents’ data

Responses from the interviews were recorded under each appropriate category
depending on the question. This was to provide a clear emergent structure for further
analysis. The next activity of the analytical process was transferring and attaching
similar responses depending on the question, from the interviews unto a display cards
with particular category. The transfers were done manually from the field notes unto
display cards using Microsoft word or SPSS applications where possible. Comparisons
of results were also done.
Step 1: What questions
Within the SPSS application, further categorization with assigned numeric values were
developed based on the responses of respondents on interview topics. For example
when the question “what financial benefits have you received as a result of
ecotourism?” was posed, possible responses such as wages (employment), casual
earnings and collective income, were given. Moreover, when asked “in what way has
ecotourism affected your relationship with other community members?”, respondents
gave indications of improved or sore relationships. These were categorized either as
positive or negative and assigned numerical values in SPSS. Statistical analyses were
done counting the frequency of certain events (i.e. frequency of occurrence of certain
categories of data) and results were presented in charts (Saunders et al., 1997:356).
Also, significant tests were done and presented if data is significant at P<0.05 level.
Step 2: Why questions
The responses to ‘why’ questions were analysed using content analysis. The texts on
each card were studied to capture the meanings underlying the responses. For example
when asked the question “in what way has ecotourism affected your relationship with
other community members and why?”. Reasons given for an improved or sore
relationship were sought in the texts. For instance one respondent noted envy indicating
sore relationship and explained that it was because some members in the community
perceive that she is making adequate income from selling to tourists. The next step was
identifying key themes or pattern in the responses given in both communities, on the
bases of which interpretations and inferences were made to answer each research
question. The findings were compared and presented in tables for clarity.

3.5.2 Analysis of informants’ data

Similar approach was used for informants except that use was not made of statistical
analysis. The derived results were compared with that of local people.

3.5.3 Comparison of Study Areas

The selected communities were compared with the purpose of indicating variations in
impacts of ecotourism between them.

29
4. POLICY CONTEXT AND INFORMANTS’
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter covers two main sections. Section 4.2 describes the historical and policy
context of ecotourism in Kakum National Park (KNP) whiles section 4.3 discusses
informants’ assessments of ecotourism impacts on the livelihoods of the communities.

4.2 HISTORICAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND OF KNP

Kakum National Park is of major conservation importance. It is an island habitat for
several globally endangered species including forest elephant, bongo and white-breasted
guinea fowl. It also contains the headwater of four major rivers that supply water for
more than 30,000 people (Omland, 2004). The park was a forest production reserve
established between 1925 and 1926 (WD, 1996). It was under the management of
Forestry Department until 1989 when its management status was transferred to Game
and Wildlife Department (now Wildlife Division). In 1992, Kakum Forest Reserve was
declared a national park using Wildlife Reserves Regulations (LI 1525) under Kakum
Conservation Area22 programme (WD, 2004). It was a programme to create a national
park and conservation area in Central Region of Ghana as an integral part of an
economic growth initiative linking the growing tourism industry to the conservation of
natural resources.
In the early stages of the park, socio-economic survey done indicated fifty-two (52)
major communities with estimated population of 37,000 (derived from 1970 and 84
population census report) were bordering Kakum National Park and its adjacent Assin
Attandanso Resource Reserve. The culture of the communities reveals high dependence
on resources for their basic needs. Gathering of NTFPs such as mushroom, snails,
tortoise, wild yam and fruits was an activity they engaged in season after season. They
also depended on the forest exclusively for their medicinal needs. Hunting was one of
the off-farm activities undertaken by the local people and there were a number of
indigenous people who hunted as their major source of income (WD, 1996:9). The
establishment of the park therefore deprived them severely, affecting their livelihoods.
Their unrestricted access to the forest was curtailed by WD operations which prohibit
hunting and access to resources (ibid.). Kakum Conservation Area Programme was
therefore planned to provide maximum sustainable benefits local communities as well
as wildlife (WD, 2004). This objective is in line with the new approach to protected area
and wildlife management in Ghana as indicated in 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy
(WD, 1996). The new policy links the importance of biodiversity with the provision of
22
It was legally gazetted in 1992 under the Kakum Conservation Area Programme (KCA) and consists of
Kakum National Park and Assin Attandanso Resource Reserve covering 210 and 150 sq. km respectively.
The primary objective of KCA was to serve as venue for tourism and was an integral part of the tourism
development programme of CEDECOM. International donor agencies such as UNDP, CI, USAID,
MUCIA etc signed an agreement with the Ghana government to implement project to preserve, develop
and promote the natural resources of KCA for tourists’ use (WD, 1996: VIII).

30
opportunities to rural people to obtain direct benefits from sustainable wildlife
management.
The formal definition for National Parks contained in the National Policy is as follows:
“Generally large and relatively undisturbed areas of outstanding natural values
containing representative sample of major natural regions, features or scenery and
containing one or several entire ecosystems not materially altered by man, or reflecting
long standing cultural Land Management practices or use. The areas should be readily
accessible to the public, have high recreational, educational, inspirational and cultural
potential and will be of clear benefit to the local people, region and the nation” (WD,
1996:39).
This definition clearly indicates benefits to local people surrounding the park.
Moreover, the policy recognises that, if protected areas are to be developed in a
sustainable way, then they should help to meet the basic needs of local people in an
equitable way and a share of financial benefits from resources utilization should be
retained…for benefit of local communities (MLF,1994).

4.3 INFORMANTS’ ASSESSMENTS OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS

This section covers the justification for the implementation of ecotourism and
assessment of ecotourism impacts on rural livelihoods. The results23 were categorized
into expected, actual and future. They were further categorized into livelihood assets
(financial, social, physical, human and natural) and positive and negative impacts for
the purpose of the study.

4.3.1 Justification for Ecotourism Implementation

The people in the communities are mainly farmers. They were involved in forest-based
livelihoods as subsidiary activity when the forest was under the administration of Forest
Department (now Forest Service Division). They had access to forest resources for
diverse benefits. These included hunting, snails gathering, firewood, medicine, timber
exploitation and other NTFPs. Consequently, when the forest reserve was converted
into national park in 1989, they lost their customary user rights and access to these
resources.
Ecotourism was implemented as a tool to achieve biodiversity conservation as the best
way of securing flora and fauna constituency and also to catalyse rural development for
the benefits of the local people. Attractions and activities were developed to promote
tourism. The purpose was to generate revenue for the management of the park.
Communities were built into the system as focal points using community based
approach to give conservation a human face and to ensure benefits to local people. This
approach aimed at facilitating cooperation and co-existence of the local people with the
park and animals. Therefore, the implementation of ecotourism in this context was
23
Justification and assessment of the impacts were given by informants (policy-makers) from the named
organizations. Chiefs of the communities only confirmed or refuted issues. But their views were also
considered.

31
motivated by the need to achieve conservation through generating revenues and benefits
to local people.

4.3.2 Expected Impacts

Expectations from ecotourism for local people include employment opportunities and
income-generating activities such as artefact production and provision of services like
accommodation. Information sharing between local people and tourists was also
anticipated. It was conceived as important ingredient in stimulating local development.
The argument was that, in coming into contact with tourists, awareness of development
in other places would be conveyed to local people, stimulating local development
initiatives. It was also expected that, tourism would catalyse other developments in the
communities. Other important expectations were revitalization of local culture and local
cooperation in protecting the park. One informant noted that cooperation with the local
people in conserving the resources was anticipated to avoid conflict because the essence
of conservation meant that parcel of forest would be protected with consequent loss of
access to resources by local people. And conservation through establishment of a
national park was needed because most of the flora and fauna were being lost at
alarming rate through farming, timber exploitation and poaching.
Negative impact expected was crop-raiding. The argument was that, with conservation
of the forest, wildlife population would increase and there would be the possibility of
farm damage by wildlife. The chiefs of the communities envisaged employments for
people and infrastructural development in their respective communities. Also, they
emphasised gaining share of revenue generated from ecotourism.
Table 4.2 Overview of Expected Impacts
Type of Impact Livelihood Assets Positive Negative
Direct Impact
Financial Employment & other
activities

Share of ecotourism
Social
revenues
Physical
Revitalization of culture

Accommodation (homestay)
Human
Infrastructure development
Natural Crop-
Information sharing
raiding

Loss access

32
4.3.3 Actual Impacts

According to one informant, local communities are benefiting in diverse ways because
of the effort made to ensure benefits. Citing as an example, he notes that in ensuring
local benefit, people were encouraged to diversify into other livelihood activities to
lessen their dependence on the forest and farming. The attempts include creating
employment, income generating activities and training opportunities. The focus was on
Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor communities. These communities were to serve as
exemplary cases on how communities could benefit and co-exist with wildlife and park.
Subsequently, these communities were developed as corridors for entering the park.
Financial resources were made available to support natural attractions identified by
communities (though other communities responded negatively). These attractions were
directly linked to ecotourism and managed in partnership with them, making local
involvement in conservation significant. This is apparent in the case of Mesomagor
community where their culture and tree platform for viewing elephants and other
wildlife were developed.
As indicated, the actual impacts in both communities include improved school
structures, electricity, toilet facility, boreholes, rehabilitated roads, health-posts, craft
production centre, employment, income from other livelihood activities, free visitation
to the park and educational materials for schools. These impacts were also confirmed by
the chiefs.
Training was indicated as a special means of enhancing the skills of local people in
delivering satisfactory services to tourists. In Mesomagor where local culture was
directly linked to ecotourism, people were organized into women’s group, orchestra
group and tourism development committee. They were trained in tour guiding and
interpretation, hospitality, financial management, drumming and dancing and cookery.
The training was to enable them manage attractions (i.e. tree platform for viewing
animals, cultural dancing and drumming, guesthouse and restaurant) for tourists. The
aspect of drumming and dancing organized the people into a group named
‘Kukyekukyeku Bamboo Orchestra’ which was remarked to have revitalized the culture
of the local people. This group was given opportunity to engage in paid performances
and drama outside the community and in the park. These performances entertain and
educate tourists and local people on conservation issues. The orchestra group was also
supported with roofing sheet and mattresses for a guesthouse they built. It was noted
that the appearance of the bamboo orchestra on CNN commercial and internet
popularized Mesomagor as ecotourism-based community. At the community level,
Mesomagor benefit financially from orchestra performances and tourist fees generated
from hiking and guided tour to the tree platform. Other benefits to Mesomagor include
rehabilitated road and NGOs assisted projects such as borehole and improved school
structure. Support in the form of sponsorship for some children under the umbrella of
World Vision International (WVI) was indicated to be of immense assistance to poor
families. One interesting comment made was that, ‘‘the community has benefited and is
transformed. No tourist would have ever gone to Mesomagor if it had not been for
ecotourism, because it was once isolated and inaccessible. But it’s now accessible and

33
their culture has been revitalized’’. Though, the chief acknowledged these benefits, he
expressed grievously that income from the orchestra group and tourist fee are not
forthcoming. Reason for the lack of income was attributed to debt owed by the
community to the orchestra group for using the guesthouse for guests.
In Abrafo-Odumase, local people were encouraged to enter into homestay services for
tourists. Advertisement support was given to promote and ensure benefits to them.
However, it was indicated that, people were not been able to take advantage of this
opportunity because of lack of interest and capital. These factors also prevented people
from undertaking ecotourism-oriented livelihood activities. Only one person was able to
take up accommodation services challenge and also some engaged in selling to tourists.
Regarding employment, some people were employed under GHCT and WD. Other local
people were casually employed as community tour guides to support the park staff on
weekends. These two groups were given tourism training to enhance delivery of
services to tourists. At the community level, the financial impacts include rent from
leased health-post and some individuals gain rent from leased land for hotel
development. Infrastructural benefits include rehabilitated road, electricity, staff
quarters, toilet facility, borehole and improved school structures. Other infrastructure
development such as market, library, bus-stop and playground were assisted projects
undertaken on yearly basis by student volunteers from Miami University, USA. These
volunteers also support teaching staff of schools in the community. This programme
was indicated as remarkable initiative of a tourist who adopted the community and is
also sponsoring some community children in their education. Other material benefits
from the tourist include educational materials, uniform and sandal supplies to junior
school in 2002 and 2003. There is also yearly sponsorship of educational excursions for
the junior school.
In contrast, negative impacts were also noted. One informant asserts that conservation
resulted in displacement of some people (e.g. timber merchants) and loss of local access
to forest resources. Crop-raiding was anticipated but not at the present scale. This has
resulted in human-elephant conflict which is a problem at the moment. Elephants are
problematic because of large and severe damage they cause. Crop-raiding was attributed
to farming activities close to the park boundary, making crop-raiding inevitable. The
chiefs expressed grievously that people are suffering because of denied access to forest
resources. Moreover, people are not compensated for damage farms. The raiding
incidences and lack of compensation have stimulated local attitude of antagonism
towards the protecting agency (WD) and wildlife. Nonetheless, WD personnel in camps
around the park assist in driving off elephants once cases are reported, an attempt to
reduce raiding. Interestingly, it was claimed that some local people provide assistance to
outsiders to engage in poaching activity for financial gain, though cases of poaching are
reported by local people. Poaching activities are counteracted by WD anti-poaching
team, imprisonment and fines.
The chiefs clearly expressed disappointment for not gaining their share of revenues
generated from ecotourism. According to one informant, there is no policy supporting
revenue sharing. However, a proposal to institute this system as a national policy is

34
being discussed at the ministerial level, to make revenue sharing possible not only in the
case of Kakum National Park but also other protected areas.
Table 4.3 Overview of Actual Impacts

Type of Impact Livelihood Assets Positive Negative

Direct Impact Financial Employment, income- Lack of

generating activities, compensation lack of
collective income revenue share
Social
Revitalized culture
Physical
Craft centre, restaurant,
elctricity

Human Training, free visitation to

park
Education material
Natural
Loss access, crop-
raiding, poaching

Indirect Impact Financial Rent, child sponsorships

Physical Library, market, bus-stop,
playground, boreholes,
guesthouse, electricity,
improved school structures,
hotels, restaurant, health-
post, toilet facilities
Human
Volunteers, excursions,
conservation education,
education material

4.3.4 Future Expectations of Impacts

Notwithstanding the current impacts, expectations were expressed by the chiefs for
more infrastructure development like police station, post office and pipe-borne water in
Abrafo-Odumase. In Abrafo-Odumase, one of the chiefs expressed dissatisfaction of
benefits and disappointment for not benefiting directly from ecotourism revenues. He
claims that the communities deserve direct benefits for reasons that their forest-based
livelihoods have been cut-off and they cooperate by serving as watchdogs reporting and
preventing poaching activities. Moreover, promises made to build schools, hospital and
pipe-born water have not been fulfilled.
Assistance for establishing education endowment fund to support the education of the
community children was also noted by the chiefs of Abrafo-odumase, though this has

35
already been initiated. One informant, declared the intention to institute scholarships
from the revenue generated from ecotourism to support community children in the near
future. The chief in Mesomagor expressed for employment for the youth in the
community.
Table 4.3 Overview of Future Expectations

Livelihood Assets Positive

Financial Employment*, scholarships**

Physical Police station*, pipe water*, post
office*

NB: 1. *Indicated by chiefs of Abrafo-Odumase 2. ** Indicated by policy-makers

4.3.5 Comparisons of Expected, Actual and Future Impacts

Financial Asset
The results indicate financial impacts across the three periods of time. These were
incomes from employment and income-generating activities. Notably, formal
employment and income-generating activities favoured people of Abrafo-Odumase.
Being the main corridor to the park and the first to develop, local people gained the
opportunity to be employed under WD and GHCT. Also, selling to tourists favoured
people in Abrafo-Odumase who are relatively exposed to more tourists, though lack of
interest and capital discouraged many from taking advantage of the situation. In
Mesomagor, involvement in cultural entertainment created a means of gaining income.
There were observed differences in financial impact. The share of ecotourism revenue
expected by chiefs and compensation for damage farms never materialized because
there is no supporting policy. A national policy to support this arrangement is under
consideration by the government. Also, child sponsorship was recognised though not
expected. It is differently organized in both communities. Whiles in Abrafo-Odumase
tourists are sponsoring children, it is being organized under WVI programme in
Mesomagor. At the community level, rent from land lease was apparent and favoured
Abrafo-Odumase, though it was not expected.
Social Asset
Revitalization of culture occurred only in Mesomagor where the culture (i.e. traditional
dancing and drumming) of the people was directly linked to ecotourism. This aspect of
culture is essential to them as it generates income for them. This did not occur in
Abrafo-Odumase because of lack of interest. This asset did not feature in the future
expectation.
Physical Asset

36
The anticipation was that ecotourism would catalyse infrastructure developments.
However, infrastructural developments favoured Abrafo-Odumase than Mesomagor
with relatively many assisted projects. Also, local people were expected to initiate some
development based on information gained from tourists. This local initiation occurred in
Mesomagor where the orchestra group built a guesthouse for tourists.
Police station, post-office and pipe-borne water were developments expressed by chiefs
of Abrafo-Odumase. These future expectations are not surprising because they are based
on promises made by CEDECOM.
Human Asset
Information sharing was anticipated for local people. However, tourism training,
excursions, education materials, conservation education by orchestra group and free
visitation of local people to park reflected in actual impacts. Perhaps, these were
regarded as impacts to be catalysed by ecotourism. Future expectation for this asset was
not indicated. Probably, it does not form part of pressing local needs.
Natural Asset
Loss access to resources and crop-raiding reflected in expectation and actual impacts.
Particularly, crop-raiding was expected but not at current scale. This was attributed to
persisting farming activities at the boundaries of the park. The occurrence of crop-
raiding and lack of compensation have contributed to human-wildlife conflict in the
communities. Though compensation was not indicated in expected impacts, the absence
of supporting policy accounts for lack of compensation for damaged farms.
The chiefs being dissatisfied with the positive impacts accruing to the communities but
also acknowledging the potential benefits of ecotourism, they indicated expectations for
employments and infrastructure development like police station, post office and pipe
water. One other need was assistance for establishing education endowment fund to
support education of the community children, as initiated in Abrafo-Odumase.
However, the intent to institute scholarships from the revenue generated from
ecotourism to support community children in the near future has been considered by
policy makers. Financial and physical assets are therefore important for the chiefs.

37
5. THE RESULTS OF LOCAL PEOPLE’S
ASSESSMENTS OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter is divided into five (5) main sections. Section 5.2 highlights the general
characteristics of respondents from Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor communities in
which the study was conducted. Section 5.3 describes the dynamics of rural livelihood
as a result of ecotourism. Section 5.4 presents expected impacts from ecotourism whiles
section 5.5 focuses on actual impacts. Section 5.6 highlights the future expectations of
respondents and last section 5.7 compares impacts. The results are supported with tables
and graphical representations where necessary.

5.2 CHARACTERISTIC OF RESPONDENTS

A total number of thirty-nine (39) respondents were interviewed. The results show that
72% of respondents are males whiles 28% are females. 5% of the respondents are young
falling within the age class of 10-19, 74% adults within the age class of 20-49 and 21%
are old within 50 and above. Out of the total respondents, 95% are married whiles 5%
are not married because they are students and young.
Residential status was categorized into indigene and migrant. It was observed that 36%
of the respondents are indigenes whiles 64% are migrants. Education of respondents
was categorized into primary, elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools. These
were further categorized into high (i.e. secondary and post-secondary school), middle
(i.e. elementary school) and low (i.e. primary school) education levels and none for
those who have not had any formal education. It was observed that 26% of the
respondents have high education level, 53% of them fall in middle level, 8% within low
level and 13% of the respondents have no education.
Statistical analysis indicates high significant difference between respondents of the two
communities regarding residential status. Table (5.1) below describes characteristics of
respondents by community.

38
Table 5.4 Overview of Respondent Characteristics in Communities

Characteristics Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor Total

Number 21 18 39

Gender (%)

Female 33 22 55
Male 67 78 145

Age Class (%)

10-19 10 0 10
20-29 10 28 38
30-39 24 17 41
40-49 32 38 70
50 and above 24 17 41

Marital status (%)

Married 90 100 190

Not married 10 0 10

Residential status (%)*

Indigene 67 0 67
Migrant 33 100 133

Level of education (%)

High 33 17 50
Middle 47 61 108
Low 10 5 15
None 10 17 27

NB: * (Cramer’s V = 0.693, P=0.000)

5.3 DYNAMICS OF LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES

This section highlights the results of the changes in livelihood activities of respondents
as a result of ecotourism. Respondents were queried on the livelihood activities they

39
were involved in before and after the implementation of ecotourism. These activities
were distinguished into primary (important) and secondary (less important) based on
respondents’ responses. Also, the activities were categorized into forest-based, farm-
based and others. However, under the consideration of livelihood activities after
ecotourism implementation, forest-based category disappeared (i.e. forest was
inaccessible) and changed into an ecotourism-based category as activities were linked to
ecotourism after its implementation. Only one respondent in Mesomagor noted being
involved in a tertiary activity which has no link with farm or ecotourism but for reason
of representation was not counted.

5.3.1 Primary Activities before Implementation of Ecotourism

The results show a number of livelihood activities which respondents were primarily
engaged. These were categorized into three main categories (i.e. forest-based, farm-
based and others). Respondents whose activities were wildlife protection and wildlife
export were categorized as forest-based. Farm-based category included farming,
working in state farms and selling farm produce. The ‘other’ category constituted
activities which were neither forest nor farm-based (e.g. students, electronic repairs and
teaching). Generally, majority (62%) of the respondents engaged in farm-based
activities, 8% were undertaking forest-based and 30% were involved in ‘other’
activities.

80
70
60
Respondents (%)

50 Forest-based
40 Farm-based
30 Other

20
10
0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.5 Primary Activities of Respondents before Ecotourism

The chart (fig. 5.1) above shows predominance of farm-based activities in the
communities. Most of the respondents in Abrafo-Odumase (52%) and Mesomagor
(72%) can be observed. Predominance of farm-based activities in both communities is
not surprising because farming was attractive in this forested area with good pattern of
rainfall.

40
Regarding forest-based activity, 10% of respondents in Abrafo-Odumase and 6% in
Mesomagor can be observed. In respective communities, these respondents were noted
as migrants working as WD personnel in other parks in that period of time. Also, 38%
of the respondents in Abrafo-Odumase and 22% in Mesomagor were involved in other
activities. Interestingly, out of twelve (12) respondents whose activities were
categorized as such, most (67%) were students based in the communities whiles 33%
were engaged in teaching and electronic repairing outside the communities. Reasons for
undertaking farming were to support household needs for food and income.

5.3.2 Secondary Activities before Implementation of Ecotourism

Respondents were also involved in secondary activities. These ranged from forest-based
(chain-sawing, hunting and gathering of NTFPs), farm-based (selling farm produce and
farming), others (terrazzo production, health-care and dress-making) and none for
respondents who were not involved in any. Generally, 61% respondents were involved
in forest-based, 10% in farm-based, 8% in other activity and 21% were not involved in
any type of activity.

80
70
60
Respondents (%)

50 Forest-based
Farm-based
40
Other
30
None
20
10
0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.6 Secondary Activities Respondents before Ecotourism

The chart (fig 5.2) above indicates that most respondents were involved in forest-based
in both communities. Out of the total respondents, most (72%) are observed in
Mesomagor whiles 52% can be observed in Abrafo-Odumase. These respondents were
depending on the forest to support their primary farm-based activity. One respondent
noted he was hunting to meet household need for meat. 10% respondents in Abrafo-
Odumase and 11% of the respondents in Mesomagor respectively, also indicated being
involved in farm-based activity. These were farmers involved in selling farm produce in
the case of Mesomagor or teachers in Abrafo-Odumase. 5% of respondents in Abrafo-
Odumase and 11% in Mesomagor noted terrazzo production, health-care or dress-

41
making as other activities. Also, 33% of respondents in Abrafo-Odumase were not
involved in any secondary activity. Interestingly, all of them were migrants. 6% noted
this in Mesomagor.

5.3.3 Primary Activities after Implementation of Ecotourism

The results show respondents engaging in primary activities. These were categorized
into ecotourism-based, farm-based and others. Activities such as tour guiding and
interpretation, park sanitation, artefacts production and sales, wildlife protection,
operating restaurant, and selling and providing accommodation for tourists were placed
under ecotourism-based activity. Crop farming and selling farm produce to community
members were categorized as farm-based activity. Other activities were carpentry and
teaching which were neither ecotourism – or farm-based. Where possible, the
ecotourism-based activities were further categorized into direct24 (tour guiding and
interpretation, wildlife protection and restaurant) or indirect25 (artefacts production and
sales, local restaurant, accommodation services, selling farm produce to tourists) for
easy analysis (see Table 5.2). Generally, majority (54%) of the respondents are involved
in farm-based activity whiles 41% of them are engaged in ecotourism-based activity.
5% are involved in other livelihood activities.

90
80
70
Respondents (%)

60
Ecotourism-based
50
Farm-based
40
Others
30
20
10
0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.7 Primary Activities of Respondents after Ecotourism

As observed in the chart (fig. 5.3) above, farm-based activity featured prominently
among respondents in Mesomamgor than in Abrafo-Odumase. This is because most
(83%) are involved primarily in farm-based activities whiles relatively few (29%) can
24
Direct link refers to activities given to tourists in the park in Abrafo-Odumase or activities in
Mesomagor which were directly linked to ecotourism and enjoyed by tourists.
25
Indirect link refers to activities given to tourists by local people who have taken advantage of
ecotourism and involved in these activities outside the park.

42
be observed in Abrafo-Odumase. Interestingly, Mesomagor was formed by migrant
farmers accounting for the high dependency on farming. Remarkably, most of these
respondents have farming as primary activity and also engaged in ecotourism on part-
time basis (see fig.5.4). Statistical analysis shows high significant difference 26 between
the two communities regarding primary activities.
On the contrary, ecotourism-based activity featured strongly among most (66%)
respondents in Abrafo-Odumase whiles relatively few (11%) can be observed in
Mesomagor. What account for this difference here is that most of them are formally
employed in the park and having farming rather as secondary activity (see fig. 5.4). The
low observation in Mesomagor represents WD personnel (i.e. wildlife guards) involved
in anti-poaching and escorting tourists on hiking. 5% (one) in Abrafo-Odumase and 6%
(one) in Mesomagor are involved in teaching and carpentry respectively. These
respondents are migrants in both communities.

5.3.4 Secondary Activities after Implementation of Ecotourism

Respondents also engage in secondary activities such as farming, dress-making,

restaurant services, photography, tour guiding and interpretation, entertainment (i.e.
cultural dancing and drumming), soap-making, brewing, health-care and voluntary
involvement in tourism committee. These activities were categorized into ecotourism-
based (photography, entertainment, restaurant, voluntary involvement in tourism
committee and tour guiding and interpretation), farm-based (farming, soap-making and
brewing) and others (selling of shoes, health-care, dress-making and school
administration). Out of thirty-nine (39) respondents, most (82%) are engaged in
secondary activities whiles 18% are not involved in any activities because of time and
financial constraints.
It can be observed in the chart (fig. 5.4) below that farm-based activity was prominent
among respondents in Abrafo-Odumase. Most (48%) can be observed and interestingly,
they are also involved in ecotourism-based activities as primary activity and having
farm-based activities as secondary (i.e. part-time). The study reveals they use some of
their income earned from the primary activity in hiring labour to support farm activities.
This was notable among respondents in the park who spend most time in the park
attending to tourists. In the case of Mesomagor, 33% are involved in farm-based
activity. Most of them are primarily farmers selling farm produce, teacher and WD
personnel involved in farming as secondary activity.

26
Cramer’s V=0.571, P=0.002

43
 60

50
Respndents (%)

40 Ecotourism-based
Farm-based
30
Other
20 None

10

0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.8 Secondary Activities of Respondents after Implementation of

Ecotourism
Regarding ecotourism-based activity, it was interesting to observe that this activity
featured prominently in Mesomagor as most (50%) can be observed. Again, it’s not
surprising to observe this as they are primarily farmers who have taken up ecotourism-
based activity on part-time basis. This involvement is in the form of entertainment and
restaurant services for extra income or on voluntary basis. In Abrafo-Odumase 14% of
the respondents are involved in ecotourism-based activity. This group represent
community tour guides involved in tour guiding and interpretation and assisting WD
and GHCT personnel on weekends. One exceptional case involves GHCT personnel of
this group involved in facility maintenance, who takes photographs of tourists who visit
the park.
Few (14%) respondents in Abrafo-Odumase noted being involved in other activity. Two
(2) are primarily farmers engaged in selling shoes or involved in dress-making. The
other respondent primarily involved in providing accommodation services, has been
able to raise sufficient funds to build a school in the community. One (6%) respondent
primarily a farmer in Mesomagor is involved in health-care. 24% of the respondents in
Abrafo-Odumase and 11% in Mesomagor have no secondary activity. In both
communities, reason given was lack of time because of being involved deeply in
primary activities. Table 5.2 gives an overview of both primary and secondary activities
categorized as ecotourism-based.

Table 5.5 Overview of Ecotourism-based Activities

Category Ecotourism-based Activity

44
 Direct Photography*
Tour guiding and interpretation***
Park sanitation*
Wildlife Protection and anti-poaching*** Park
Facility maintenance*
Entertainment (dancing and drumming)**
Restaurant**

Indirect Accommodation services*

Artefact production and sales*
Local restaurant(‘chopbar’)*
Selling farm produce***

NB: 1. * Indicates impact in Abrafo-Odumase 2. ** Indicates impact in Mesomagor 3. *** Common

5.3.5 Important Dynamics of Livelihood Activities

The study shows that implementation of ecotourism caused changes in livelihood

activities of local people. However these changes vary between the communities. Two
major changes are apparent in the study. These are changes in forest-based livelihoods
and farm-based activities in relation to ecotourism.
As observed, forest-based activities (i.e. as secondary activity) were equally important
in both communities as subsidiary activities supporting farm-based livelihoods. As
expected, activities based on forest were curtailed after the park was established and
entries to the park for extraction purposes prohibited. Infractions attract severe
consequences such as fines and imprisonments deterring local people from engaging in
forest-based livelihoods. Interestingly, with subsequent implementation of ecotourism,
interest of local people in farming did not change. The study reveals two major patterns
of changes. Firstly, people involved ecotourism maintained farming as primary (i.e.
important) or secondary activity (i.e. less important). In Abrafo-Odumase, people
supplement ecotourism with farming whiles people supplement farming with
ecotourism in Mesomagor. This indicates that whiles ecotourism is important in Abrafo-
Odumase, farming is important in Mesomagor, for people involved in ecotourism.
Secondly, in both communities, people with no stake in ecotourism maintained farming
as primary activity and supporting with other activities. Essentially, people are involved
in multiple activities to meet households’ needs.
Generally, it can be concluded that;

45
1. Maintaining multiple activities is essential for local people as they supplement
important activities with others. This is indicated by involvement in primary and
secondary activities.
2. Local interest in farming did not change significantly as people either took up
ecotourism or other activities.
3. Farming is more important in Mesomagor whiles ecotourism is more important in
Abrafo-Odumase for people involved.
4. Farming is important for people with no stake in ecotourism in both communities.
They supplement this activity with other activities.

5.4 EXPECTED IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOOD ASSETS

The study reveals a range of expectations from ecotourism both at the personal and
community level. These include employment, income-generating activities,
infrastructural developments, mechanism to prevent crop-raiding and a share of
revenues generated from ecotourism. These were categorized into livelihood assets (see
Table 5.3) for clarity and easy analysis.
At the personal level, respondents anticipated employment and opportunities to sell to
tourists. These responses featured strongly among respondents in Abrafo-Odumase. It
became apparent that these expectations were influenced by promises made by
CEDECOM (Central Regional Development Commission), the body which initiated the
park establishment. They anticipated being employed near home would enable them
have time for their farms.
At the community level, the interviews reveal expectations for common benefits
because people acknowledged that not everyone would gain employment. It was not
astonishing, when physical infrastructure development (i.e. roads, hotels, hospital,
electricity, schools and toilet facilities), mechanism to prevent crop-raiding and gaining
share of the revenues from ecotourism were envisaged. These expectations featured
strongly in Abrafo-Odumase. Perhaps, having shared ownership of the park, they had
more access to information and had better insight in terms of possible benefits of
ecotourism. With respect to other peculiarities regarding expectations, respondents in
Mesomagor emphasized revitalization of culture and possible sponsorship of group to
perform outside the community and abroad.
It can be concluded from the results that generally;
1. Local people had major expectations with regard to financial and physical assets.
2. Local people attached more importance to physical asset because of its common
benefit characteristics.
3. Local people had no expectation regarding human asset.
4. Local people had major expectation with regards to mechanism preventing crop-
raiding.

46
5. Only people in Mesomagor expressed expectation regarding social asset.
Table 5.6 Overview of Expectations from Ecotourism

Livelihood Assets Expectations

Financial Shared revenue*, employment*,

selling*,sponsorship**

Social Revitalization of culture**

Physical Infrastructure development*

Human -

Natural Prevention of crop raiding***

NB: 1.* Indicates prominence in Abrafo-Odumase 2. ** Prominence in Mesomagor 3. *** Common

5.5 ACTUAL IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOOD ASSETS

These impacts were categorized into livelihoods assets (financial, social, physical,
human and natural) and where possible into positive, negative, and direct27 and indirect28
impacts for the purpose of clarity.

5.5.1 Actual Impact on Financial Asset

The financial impacts categorization fall into wages (for those earning income from
ecotourism through full or part-time employment), casual earnings (income from selling
to tourists), profit (for providing accommodation services), collective income (financial
benefit at community level) and none (for those who claim having no financial gain
from ecotourism). Generally, out of the total respondents, 43% have wages, 23% have
casual earnings, 3% have profit and 31% have no financial benefits.
The chart (fig. 5.5) below indicates that most (48%) of the respondents in Abrafo-
Odumase receive wages whiles 39% can be observed in Mesomagor. Differences in
wages were apparent. Respondents in Abrafo-Odumase are employed under WD or
GHCT or community tour guides whiles in Mesomagor, they are involved in providing
cultural entertainment and guided tour. Also, 24% of the respondents in Abrafo-
Odumase and 22% in Mesomagor benefit financially in terms of casual earnings. They
are sellers involved in food services or artefact production. Only one respondent (4%)
provide accommodation services to tourists (categorized under profits) in Abrafo-
Odumase. At the individual level this is absent in Mesomagor. However, this service is
provided by the orchestra group (and not considered at the individual level as is the case

27
Direct impacts refer to those planned and executed by authorities concern with park e.g. employment.
28
Indirect impacts refer to impacts stimulated by other agents (e.g. tourist or NGOs) for people e.g.
library.

47
in Abrafo-Odumase). Some respondents claim not benefiting financially. 24% of them
can be observed in Abrafo-Odumase whiles 39% are observed in Mesomagor. These
represent people not involved in ecotourism.

60

50
Respondents (%)

40 Wages
Casual Earnings
30
Profit
20 None

10

0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.9 Financial Impacts at Individual Level

At the community level, both communities earn collective income. In Abrafo-Odumase,
income is earned through lease of the community health-post to private dispenser whiles
in Mesomagor collective income come from two sources. These are percentage of
tourist fee and income from orchestra performance. In both communities, what became
obvious was that, they do not benefit from revenues generated from ecotourism.
In responding to the question “what was your financial status before and how do you
assess it?” as indicating financial improvement29, three types of responses were noted
and categorized as ‘positive’ for responses indicating relative financial improvement,
‘negative’ for no improvement responses and ‘none’ for respondents who made no
comments.
The chart (fig. 5.6) below indicates prominently that most (57%) respondents in Abrafo-
Odumase have improvement whiles 28% of respondents were observed in Mesomagor.
This is not surprising in Abrafo-Odumase where respondents claimed being able to
afford medication for the family, support family financially, support children education
and built houses. This might be because of additional sources of income including
bonuses or gifts (cash) received from tourists.

29
This financial improvement is based on comparative assessment of financial status before and during
ecotourism by respondents.

48
 60

50
Respondents (%)

40
Positive
30 Negative
None
20

10

0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.10 Financial Improvement at Individual Level

In Mesomagor, though respondents gain income, they complained being insufficient.
Interestingly, it was clear that due to the number of people involved in the orchestra
group, individual share of income from performance is low. Consequently, many are
losing enthusiasm and group number30 is declining as they see investing time in farming
to be a better option. They perceive farming to offer future guarantee instead. Also,
complaint of delay payment of wages was noted by the tour guide and guard. Also,
insufficient income account for 22% of negative responses observed in Mesomagor,
although, in one peculiar case, one respondent claimed that she was able to settle her
debt with income from performances in the early stages of the group.
Few respondents (14%) in Abrafo-Odumase had no improvement despite earning
income. They claimed there had been no difference because they are still suffering.
Especially in the case of the people selling near the gate of the park, they were
displeased because most tourists were inaccessible since they are not allowed to enter
the park and sell. The only possible moment for selling is when vehicles with tourists
stop for a maximum time of ten (10) minutes at the gate or when some tourists come to
eat in the local restaurant (‘chopbar’) outside the park. 29% of the respondents in
Abrafo-Odumase and 50% in Mesomagor made no comment. Most of them have no
stake in ecotourism.
Conclusions can be drawn based on number of respondents benefiting and financial
improvement. These are;
1. Financial asset of people involved in ecotourism in Abrafo-Odumase improved than
in Mesomagor. This is because most (57%) respondents in Abrafo-Odumase were

30
The orchestra group started with twenty-seven (27) members but now thirteen (13) members in 2004.

49
 able to afford families’ needs for medication, finance, education and shelter. On the
contrary, respondents in Mesomagor complained of insufficient income earned.
2. Financial improvement of sellers at the gate in Abrafo-Odumase is impeded by lack
of access to tourists in the park.
3. Local people with no stake in ecotourism are not benefiting financially.
Table 5.7 Overview of Financial Impacts from Ecotourism

Types of Impacts Positive Negative

Direct Impacts Employment(wages)*** Delay payment**

No share from ecotourism
revenue***
Inaccessibility to tourists*

Indirect Impacts Casual earnings*** Low share from performance fee**

Profit*, Built houses*
Collective income***
Child education*
Support family*
Debt settlement**,
Gifts*

NB: 1.* Indicates impact in Abrafo-Odumase 2. **Indicates impact in Mesomagor 3. ***Common

5.5.2 Actual Impact on Social Asset

Social asset is divided into three main aspects for this study. These are relationship of
trust (i.e. relationship of respondents with other people in the communities), social
norms (i.e. expected form of behaviour from community members) and social network
(i.e. making of contact for friendship with tourists). Where possible these impacts were
categorized into positive, negative and direct and indirect. The purpose was to gain
insight into the different aspects of impact on this asset.
Relationship of Trust
The results reveal positive and negative responses when respondents were queried about
the impact of ecotourism on their relationships with other members of the community
and what had been the lost or gain as a result. These responses were categorized into
positive impact for reasons connoting good or improved relationships with members of
the community. These include chatting and laughing resulting in happiness and being
accorded respect. Other responses indicating sore relationships were categorized into

50
negative impact. These include envy, hate and insults resulting in enmity and lost
friendships. Also, responses which indicate neither improved nor sore relationships
were categorized as ‘same’. Other respondents made no comments. Generally, most
(36%) of the respondents made no comments. They did not comment because they are
not involved in ecotourism. 28% of them had positive encounter with other people and
26% had no encountered (i.e. same). Only 10% of the respondents had negative
encounter.

60

50
Respondents (%)

40 Positive impact
Negative impact
30
Same
20 No comment

10

0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.11 Impacts on Relationship of Trust at Individual Level

The chart (fig 5.7) above indicates that 39% of the respondents in Mesomagor had
positive encounter with other people in the community whiles 19% can be observed in
Abrafo-Odumase. Indications such as chatting, laughing and being accorded respect
account for positive impacts and featured strongly in Mesomagor. These are associated
with performances of the orchestra group in funerals and weddings in the community.
Interestingly, one respondent claimed gaining respect and likeness in the community by
virtue of being community tour guide, making him proud. This is because his
involvement has improved his English and notably he is appointed to speak on behalf of
the community when officials visit the community.
Some respondents indicated negative encounter. 14% in Abrafo-Odumase and only 6%
in Mesomagor can be observed. Envy, hate and insults were indicated. These resulted in
enmity and lost of friendship. Interestingly, these were associated with being WD or
migrant in the community. One respondent remarked that “the relationships between me
and some people have gone sore because I sell at the park. They envy me and as a result
they never sell my oranges when I am not there”. This is probably because some people
dislike seeing a migrant in the community taking advantage of ecotourism and making
income. In the case of WD personnel, accusations of loss of access to forest resources,
fines, arrests and imprisonments account for the negative encounter. Other respondents
indicated having no experience. Most (43%) occurred in Abrafo-Odumase whiles

51
relatively few (6%) can be observed in Mesomagor. Also, 49% in Mesomagor and 24%
in Abrafo-Odumase made no comment. Statistical analysis indicates significant
difference between the communities regarding relationship of trust31.
Generally, it can be concluded that relationship is important in Mesomagor. This has
been enhanced by performances of the orchestra group under weddings and funerals and
being tour guide. Moreover, the nature of the community (being comparatively small,
closed and remote) makes the entertaining role of the group very important in
relationships building. Gaining good relationship with the group means gaining access
to entertaining services. Hence relationships seem to be based on reciprocity making
relationships very important in Mesomagor.
Table 5.8 Overview of Impact on Relationship of Trust

Type of Impact Positive Negative

Indirect Chatting and laughing resulting in Envy, hate and insults

Impact resulting in enmity and
happiness**,Respect**,Pride**,Likene
lost friendship*
ss**

NB:1.*Indicates prominence in Abrafo-Odumase 2.**Indicates prominence in Mesomagor

3.***Common

Social Norm
The results indicate that involvement in ecotourism conflicts with community activity as
people are unable to participate in communal labour. This was more evident in Abrafo-
Odumase where those in the park are preoccupied and unable to participate. As a result,
levy of 10,000 cedis32 per month has been arranged. In contrast, people are able to
participate partly in Mesomagor if not preoccupied with performances. Nevertheless, a
percentage of the income made from performance is paid to the community as
compensation for inability to participate.
Indirectly, respondents indicated improved sanitation in Mesomagor as a result of
ecotourism. Reason accounting for this was revival and enforcement of taboo which
prevents people from keeping dogs in the community. Also, bye-law preventing stray
livestock was also developed and instituted. Owners of captured animals are fined 5000
cedis.
The general conclusions are;
1. Involvement in ecotourism conflicts with communal activity as evident in
Abrafo-Odumase.
2. Ecotourism enhances development of local institutions to counteract conflict.
This is demonstrated by the arrangement of levy and development of taboo and
fine. These were important in promoting ecotourism in Mesomagor.
31
Cramer’s V=0.485, P=0.027
32
Ghanaian currency (1 Euro is equivalent to 11850 Cedis) (Ghana Graphic, 2005).

52
Table 5.9 Overview of Impacts on Social Norm

Type of Impact Positive Negative

Indirect Improved sanitation**, Conflict with communal

Impact Fine** labour***
Revived taboo**, Levy*

NB: 1.* Indicates impact in Abrafo-Odumase 2. **Indicates impact in Mesomagor 3. ***Common

Social Network
Respondents were asked the question “in what way has ecotourism impacted on your
social networks and what has been gained or lost?”. Responses were categorized into
positive for making contact for friendship with tourists and negative for respondents
who claimed making no such contact. Generally, majority (59%) of the respondents
have made friends with tourists whiles minority (41%) indicated making no such
contact.
The chart (fig. 5.8) below indicates that 57% of respondents in Abrafo-Odumase and
61% in Mesomagor had positive contact. This was characteristically apparent with
respondents involved in ecotourism as they are in contact with tourists by virtue of their
activities. However, this featured predominantly in Abrafo-Odumase where visitation of
tourists is relatively high and respondents come into contact and make friends
frequently. It is not surprising to make such an observation because Abrafo-Odumase is
the main gateway into the park and with major attractions, making contact with tourists
relatively frequent.

70

60
Respondents (%)

50

40 Positive impact
30 Negative impact

20

10

0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.12 Impacts on Social Network at Individual Level

53
In Abrafo-Odumase, these contacts have been beneficial as respondents claimed
benefiting in many ways such as: information exchange (i.e. corresponding with
tourists); receiving gifts (cash and in kind); credit for purchase of equipment; becoming
happy as a result of chatting and laughing with them; given advice when problems are
shared; and child sponsorship. In a peculiar case, one respondent entered into
partnership with a tourist, providing accommodation services to tourists. Additionally,
she has built a school from the proceeds and offering free education to some needy
students in the community. On the contrary, benefits indicated in Mesomagor were
typically information exchange and receiving gifts. Only one respondent claimed
gaining job in teaching tourists dancing and drumming in the city. There was a basic
difference regarding child sponsorship worth noting. Whiles child sponsorship was
promoted by World Vision International in Mesomagor, tourists have adopted and
sponsoring children in Abrafo-Odumase.
The results also indicate that 43% of respondents in Abrafo-Odumase and 39% in
Mesomagor made no contact. Indications of lack of interest or not being involved in
ecotourism account for this.
It can be concluded that people in Abrafo-Odumase value contacts with tourists and
have benefited more from such contact than people in Mesomagor. The reason
accounting for this basic difference is frequent contact with tourists and benefits noted.
Table 5.10 Overview of Impacts on Social Network

Type of Impact Positive

Indirect Job**, Advice*, Chatting*, Happiness*, Child sponsorship***,

Impact Credit*, Gift***, information exchange***

NB: 1.* Indicates impact in Abrafo-Odumase 2. **Indicates impact in Mesomagor 3. *** Common

5.5.3 Actual Impact on Physical Asset

A range of assets in the communities were indicated. These assets were categorized into
transport, shelter and building, energy and adequate water supply. These were further
categorized into positive, direct and indirect impact for clarification.
In Abrafo-Odumase, assets include market, library, bus-stop and playground. These
assets were built by student volunteers from Miami University. The project was initiated
by a tourist and it is a yearly project undertaken in the community. Other assets are
health-post, hotel (in progress), borehole, improved school structures, rehabilitated road,
craft production village, WD staff quarters, public toilet and electricity. These are local
government or funding agency assisted projects. Perhaps, these organizations made a
choice for Abrafo-Odumase for such projects as a way of augmenting benefits to the
community. Interestingly, it was apparent that people have taken advantage of
electricity and improved road. They engage in other economic activities based on these
utilities. For instance people engage in selling iced blocks and water, communication

54
centre33, operating drinking bars and barbering shop. The road has enhanced easy access
to the city (i.e. Cape Coast) for trading.
In Mesomagor, assets include guesthouse, rehabilitated road, improved school
structures, borehole, health-post and WD quarters. These are NGOs, tourists, funding
agency and local government assisted projects. The improved road has also improved
accessibility and enhancing trading in the community. As indicated, people transport
farm produce to the marketing centres out of the community. Electricity is being
extended into the community by the local government.
The study shows that the communities have gained from in terms of physical assets.
Generally, it can be concluded that;
1. Transportation is equally important in the communities, making the communities
accessible and enhanced trading and travelling to urban centres.
2. Electricity has stimulated other livelihood activities in Abrafo-Odumase, making
this asset important in Abrafo-Odumase.
3. Most of the assets were indirectly gained. This is because many of the assets were
not funded with revenues from the park.
Table 5.11 Overview of Impacts on Physical Asset

Type of Impact Physical Asset Type Positive Impacts

Indirect Impacts Transport Improved roads***

Shelter and building Hotel*, Bus-stop*, Communication
centre* improved school***, Library*,
market* guesthouse***, health-post***,
public toilet playground*
Water Supply Borehole***

Direct Impacts Shelter and building Craft production centre*, WD quarters***

Energy Electricity*

NB:1.* Indicates occurrence in Abrafo-Odumase 2.** Indicates occurrence in Mesomagor

3.***Common

33
It refers to telephone operated by private person for public use.

55
5.5.4 Actual Impact on Human Asset

Different types of tourism training were given to respondents involved directly in

ecotourism. These range from hospitality, tour guiding and interpretation, first aid
administration, communication, conflict resolution, traffic management, financial
management (i.e. bookkeeping), cookery and hygiene, facility maintenance and dancing
and drumming (i.e. entertainment). These were categorized into training for responses
indicating tourism training and none for responses indicating no training. Generally,
majority (61%) of the respondents indicated being trained whiles a minority (39%) had
none of the trained listed. These represent respondents not involved directly in
ecotourism.
As observed from the chart (fig. 9) below, 57% of the respondents in Abrafo-Odumase
and 67% in Mesomagor were trained. However, there was difference regarding training.
Training such as tour guiding and interpretation, first aid administration, hospitality,
knowledge in tourism and conservation, facility maintenance, traffic management and
conflict resolution were prominent in Abrafo-Odumase. In Mesomagor, training such as
dancing and drumming, cookery, soap-making and bookkeeping featured. As part of the
training, they were given exposure tour to other community involved in ecotourism. The
cultural aspect (i.e. dancing and drumming with bamboo) of the local people of
Mesomagor which was directly linked to ecotourism accounts for the different type of
training given. The attractions and facilities are managed by the community, accounting
for training in financial management which to enable them manage their finances.
Respondents who did not receive any form of training, 43% can be observed in Abrafo-
Odumase whiles 33% in Mesomagor can also be observed. They are people not
involved directly in ecotourism but predominantly farmers.

80
70
60
Respondents (%)

50
Positive impact
40
Negative impact
30
20
10
0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.13 Impacts on Human Asset at Individual Level

56
Respondents were also queried on other useful benefits obtained as a result of the
training acquired. Benefits noted are: administering first aid to community members
who sustained cutlass injury; being careful about medication; improvement in English
language and polite speaking to community members; giving conservation education to
some people and improved personal hygiene. These impacts featured prominently in
Abrafo-Odumase.
In particular, application of bookkeeping knowledge to farm business was indicated in
Mesomagor. One respondent remarked being entrusted with the management of
community project funds because of the basic accounting knowledge acquired. Training
of students and tourists in dancing and drumming for fee was also apparent. A junior
orchestra group for sustainability of culture was also formed in the community school.
Training in dancing and drumming was claimed to have revived the culture of the
people. Interestingly, it was asserted that they have gained fame worldwide through
internet and CNN commercials.
Three major conclusions can be drawn based on the type of training acquired and other
useful benefits to the people. These are;
1. Training such as hospitality, tour guiding and interpretation, first aid administration,
communication, traffic management and facility maintenance are important in
Abrafo-Odumase because of frequent contact with tourists and having the major
facilities.
2. Training acquired benefit people in Abrafo-Odumase based on prominence of other
benefits such as first aid administration, care about medication, improvement in
English language and polite speaking.
3. Training in cookery and hygiene, financial management, dancing and drumming are
important in Mesomagor because they are involved in managing the attractions
including the cultural aspect.
4. Training favoured Mesomagor culturally. The culture was revitalized as a result of
training acquired.
Table 5.12 Overview of Impacts on Human Asset

Type of Impact Positive

Direct Impacts Conflict resolution and communication*, Traffic management*

Hospitality***, Cookery**, First Aid Administration*, Exposure
tour**, Soap-making**, Facility maintenance*, Tour guiding and
Interpretation***, Bookkeeping**, Dancing and drumming**,
General knowledge in conservation and tourism*

Indirect Impacts Improved hygiene*, improved English***, Conservation

education*** Fame**, Trust**, First Aid Administration*, revival
of culture** Application of bookkeeping knowledge**

57
NB: 1.* indicates impact in Abrafo-Odumase 2. ** indicates impact in Mesomagor 3. *** Common

5.5.5 Actual Impact on Natural Asset

Regarding natural asset, certain critical issues were revealed in the study. The issues
include loss of access, poaching, imprisonment, fines, crop-raiding, and lack of
compensation for farm damage, conflict with neighbouring community and limited
access to farmland. These were categorized into forest and land. They were further
categorized as negative impacts. Other issues categorized as positive were communities
acting as ‘watch dogs’ and benefit in terms of rent from leased lands (see Table 5.10).
Loss of access to forest resources was a dominant issue raised by respondents in both
communities. This is obvious because the forest was an important livelihood support
system when they had access. In one case, a respondent claimed she was supporting her
education in 1960s with income made from snails gathered from the forest. Though,
respondents acknowledged the consequences of infraction (such as imprisonment and
fines), they expressed contempt for the manner in which WD personnel handle people
for infraction. They claim being aware of incidences of imprisonment, fines and
maltreatment for entering the park or poaching. Consequently, these incidences have
contributed to the development antagonistic attitude towards WD personnel.
Crop-raiding or damage of farms by elephants (which farmers used to prevent through
shooting or other means) was also a critical issue because of its persistence. This was
attributed to persisting farming activities along the boundary of the park which attract
wildlife. Respondents claimed that incidences of raiding are reported to WD personnel
but they receive no compensation for farm damage. It was indicated that their
livelihoods are severely disrupted. One respondent claimed his farm is often destroyed
by the elephants. Expected incomes are lost, making it difficult for him to support
education of his children. He estimated the value of damage at 4million cedis. It was
apparent there was no policy addressing issues of compensation. Cases of crop-raiding
and lack of compensation also contribute to antagonistic attitude of the local people.
In contrast to negative impacts, respondents acknowledged the conservation importance
of the park. They indicated that conservation of the forest was essential in terms of
preventing damage of cocoa farms through timber exploitation, preventing
indiscriminate killing of wildlife, forest degradation and consequent drying of rivers and
improving rainfall for farming activities in the area. Also, the park will be of benefit for
the future generation. The awareness of conservation significance of the park was also
reflected when respondents noted that the communities assist in the protection of the
park by preventing or reporting potential poaching cases to WD. It was not surprising
when it was noted that there is conflict (i.e. hatred) between Mesomagor and some
neighbouring communities. These communities perceive that Mesomagor benefit from
ecotourism and serving as watchdogs reporting poachers from other communities to
protect its interest.
The study reveals that people have access to land for farming based on different
arrangements. These are inheritance, abunu system (tenant farmer share farm produce

58
with landowner), abusa system (landowner takes a third of farm produce in the case of
cash crops) and lease. Abunu and abusa system featured in Mesomagor whiles in
Abrafo-Odumase, lease and inheritance dominated. Despite having access to land,
respondents claimed that the park limit access to more land for farming. Also, the study
reveals that some people in Abrafo-Odumase community benefit in terms of rent from
leased land for hotels development. People in Abrafo-Odumase have ownership right
over lands than in Mesomagor who are recognised as migrant with only user right.
It can be concluded that;
1. People are still connected to the forest as indicated by concern over loss access.
2. People are aware of the conservation significance of the park and contribute to its
protection in terms of reporting or preventing poaching cases.
3. Local cooperation in protecting the park has resulted in conflict between
Mesomagor and some neighbouring communities.
4. People have developed antagonistic attitude towards WD personnel and animals
based on knowledge of maltreatment, fines and imprisonment of poachers and
others who enter the park. Other contributing factors are loss of access to forest
resources and lack of compensation for damaged farms.
5. People in Abrafo-Odumase benefit financially from leased lands.
6. Crop-raiding of farms is persisting and severely disrupt livelihoods of local people.
7. People have access to land based on four land arrangement systems.
8. People in Abrafo-Odumase have ownership rights to land as inheritance and lease
featured predominantly.
Table 5.13 Overview of Impacts on Natural Asset

Type of Impact Asset Positive Negative

Direct Impact Forest Watchdogs*** Loss access and user rights***

Lack of compensation***
Conflict with WD staff***
Crop-raiding by elephants***
Poaching, imprisonments, fines
Land Access to land Limited lands for farming***

Indirect Impact Land Rent from Conflict with neighbour

lease* villages**

NB: 1.* Indicates impact in Abrafo-Odumase 2. ** Indicates impact in Mesomagor 3. *** Common

59
5.5.6 Impacts on Non-ecotourism Activities

The results indicate that being involved in ecotourism either conflict or complement
farming activity. Conflicts with farming activity occur in terms of time and farm
damage through raiding. These were categorized as negative impacts. Complementarity
in terms of using some of the income earned from ecotourism for hiring labour was
categorized as positive impact.
Basic difference in terms of time conflict between the communities was observed.
Involvement in cultural entertainment conflicts with farming activities. In many cases,
time is wasted in expecting tourists who never show or tourists visit unannounced
making them abandon their farming activity to prepare for cultural performance.
Sometimes tourists are not even interested in the cultural aspect because they opt for
hiking and wildlife viewing at the tree platform. It was obvious that lack of
communication equipment and poor planning explain the irregular visitation of tourists
to the community. In Abrafo-Odumase, time conflict featured strongly among
respondents employed in the park. Having insufficient time to attend to their farms
because of preoccupation with events in the park (though they get some days off), they
use some of the income earned in hiring labour. Crop damage was equally problematic
in both communities
Three major conclusions can be drawn based on time conflict and relative contribution
of income to farming activities. These are;
1. Involvement in ecotourism conflicts with farming activities. However, this conflict
severely disrupts farming activities of some people in Mesomagor.
2. Involvement in ecotourism complements farming activities of some people in
Abrafo-Odumase. This is because of financial ability to hire labour with some of
their incomes.
3. Crop-raiding disrupt farming activities of local people.
Table 5.14 Overview of Ecotourism Impacts on other Activities

Non-ecotourism activity Complementarities/Positive Conflict/negative

Agriculture Income for hiring labour* Time conflict***

Crop damage***

NB: 1.* Indicates impact in Abrafo-Odumase 2. ** Indicates impact in Mesomagor 3. *** Common

5.6 FUTURE EXPECTATIONS OF IMPACTS

The results shows that respondents expect more benefits (positive impacts) whiles some
have no expectation, when the question ‘what are your expectations from ecotourism as
long as it exist?’ was posed. The benefits range from employment, sustained revenue
generation in the park for payment of wages, wage increment, tourism training, gifts,

60
increase social network, sponsorship for children, compensation for farm damage,
infrastructure development and invitation of the orchestra to perform abroad. These
were categorized into positive for responses indicating expectation and negative for
responses indicating no expectation. The responses were further categorized into
livelihood assets (financial, social, physical, human and natural) for the purpose of
study and ease of analysis.
The chart (fig. 10) below indicates that most (81%) respondents in Abrafo-Odumase
and (83%) in Mesomagor expect more benefits from ecotourism. However, there were
differences in expectations. It was surprisingly noted that benefits such as tourism
training, employment, wage increment, gifts, increase social network and sponsorship
for children. Infrastructure developments featured prominently in Abrafo-Odumase.
They are optimistic that with the development of hotels in the community, more
employments would be created. On the contrary, emphasis was on sponsorship of the
orchestra group to perform in cities and abroad. This expectation was influenced by
promises made by some tourists. Eventhough disappointment was expressed for failure
to fulfil these promises, they still hold this expectation.

90
80
70
Respondents (%)

60
50 Positive impact
40 Negative impact
30
20
10
0
Abrafo-Odumase Mesomagor
Community

Figure 5.14 Future Expectations from Ecotourism

Minority of the respondents in Abrafo-Odumase (19%) and Mesomagor (17%)
expressed no expectation. They indicated being disappointed about the failure of
CEDECOM or GHCT to implement promises made or stimulate direct benefits. They
further mentioned not even expecting their children to benefit in future. Interestingly,
these responses were noted among people with no stake in ecotourism (i.e. mainly
farmers). The exceptional case involves sellers in Abrafo-Odumase who claim to be
benefiting but were concerned about not gaining access to tourists in the park.
Despite these negative perceptions, these respondents emphasized that the communities
need to benefit from ecotourism as they have been denied their livelihood based on

61
forest and as long as ecotourism exist they expect promises made before the
establishment of the park to be fulfilled. In Abrafo-Odumase, future demonstration to
register their dissatisfaction has being considered.
Conclusions can be drawn based on prominence of expectations. These are;
1. People still have major expectations on all the assets.
2. Expectations such as tourism training, employment, wage increment, gifts, increase
social network, sponsorship were prominently expressed by people in Abrafo-
Odumase because of the fore-knowledge of such benefits from ecotourism.
3. Improved access to tourists in park was expressed by sellers in Abrafo-Odumase.
4. Some people have no expectations because they have not benefited from
ecotourism. They are typically farmers with no stake in ecotourism.
5. Sponsorship for performances in cities and abroad was expressed only in
Mesomagor.
6. People in Abrafo-Odumase have relatively high expectations.
Table 5.15 Overview of Future Expected Impacts from Ecotourism

Livelihood Assets Expectations

Financial Employment*, revenue*, wage increment*, gifts*, child

sponsorship* sponsorship for performance**,
compensation***

Social Increase social network*

Physical Infrastructure development e.g. schools, pipe water*

Human Training*

Natural Improve access to sell in the park*

NB: 1. * indicates prominence in Abrafo-Odumase 2. ** Prominence in Mesomagor 3. *** Common

5.7 COMPARISON OF ECOTOURISM IMPACTS

This section covers four aspects and involves comparisons of impacts. These are made
with respect to livelihood assets (i.e. financial, social, physical, human and natural).

5.7.1 Comparison of Expected, Actual and Future Impacts on Assets

Financial Asset

62
The results show that local people’s expectations regarding financial assets were
realized. This is because people were either employed or engaging in other income-
generating activities such as selling to tourists. However, they also expressed future
expectations for income. There are three probable reasons accounting for the
expectations. These are knowledge regarding present financial impacts of ecotourism,
impediments to increase impacts and unfulfilled promises.
People are quite aware of the financial impacts accruing to them or others. Interestingly,
they expect more. For example, this was evident in the expectations for employment,
increment in wages and sustained revenue from ecotourism to cover wages. Also,
people expressed insufficiency in income earned or impediment to increased income
because of inaccessibility to tourists in the park. In both cases, people acknowledged
gaining income but also indicated that if they have access to tourists then they will gain
more income. Lastly, there are people who neither gained employment nor engage in
other income-generating activities. Their expectations were influenced by ‘promises’ of
employment for local people made by CEDECOM.
Social Asset
Cultural revitalization was expected and realized. Additionally, the study shows both
positive and negative consequences associated with this asset. As revealed, people had
improved and sore relationships associated with ecotourism. Norms were revived and
breached. Lastly, people benefited economically from network whiles others did not
because of lack of interest. Interestingly, because of the economic implications of
having contact with tourists, it was evidently expressed as future expectation.
Physical Asset
Local people had major expectations for infrastructure developments. It was evident that
these were expected directly from revenues generated from ecotourism. Moreover, these
assets were supposedly promised by CEDECOM during the campaign to establish the
park. However, the study indicates that most assets were indirectly gained. These were
local government, tourists or NGO assisted projects. As a result, expectations for assets
such as schools, pipe water and hospital are apparently expected.
Human Asset
Human asset was not expected by local people. However, it was revealed that different
types of tourism training were acquired by people directly involved in ecotourism.
These were necessary for ensuring quality service delivery to meet to tourists’
satisfaction. Because of the intrinsic value and other usefulness of training as reflected
for example in improved English, it was interesting indicated as future expectation.
Natural Asset
Mechanism to prevent crop-raiding was a major expectation expressed by people
because of its severe implications such as loss of revenue. On the contrary, the study
shows that crop-raiding is persisting. This incidence was attributed to persisting farming

63
activities near the boundary of the park. As shown, farmers gain no compensated for
damaged farms because there is no policy supporting compensation.

5.7.2 Comparison between Communities

Financial Asset
There was a basic difference between the communities. It was obvious that people in
Abrafo-Odumase are formally employed and engaged other income-generating
activities at the entrance of the park. On the contrary, most people in Mesomagor are
involved in the orchestra group which provides cultural entertainment. Interestingly, the
study shows that most (57%) people in Abrafo-Odumase have financial improvement
than people in Mesomagor. This was expressed in terms of ability to afford families’
needs for medical care, finance, education and shelter. The only exceptional case
involved sellers at the park who claimed that they will have financial improvement if
they have access to tourists in the park. On the contrary, people in Mesomagor
complained of insufficiency in income earned. This was attributed to delay payment and
low share of income because of number of people involved in the orchestra group.
Social Asset
Relationships between local people in Mesomagor improved significantly. The study
indicates connotations such as chatting, laughing and gaining respect were apparent in
the community. The relationships are based on reciprocity and enhanced by the cultural
entertainment of the people. In contrast, indications of envy, hatred and insults
accounted for negative relationships of some people in Abrafo-Odumase.
Social norms such as taboo, fines and bye-law were indicated in Mesomagor. These
were revived and instituted to improve sanitation and promote ecotourism. Other related
issue concerning conflict with community activity was revealed in the communities. It
was obvious that involvement in ecotourism conflict with communal labour. This is
relatively severe in Abrafo-Odumase where people are preoccupied with tourism
activities and unable to participate. Consequently, levy arrangement has been made to
compensate for inability to participate.
Social network is of significance to people in Abrafo-Odumase. As shown, people in
Abrafo-Odumase benefit more from contacts with tourist. Such benefits include child
sponsors, gifts and credits. Reason accounting for this, is the frequent contact with
tourists. It was therefore not surprising when expectation in terms of increased social
network was indicated prominently in Abrafo-Odumase.

64
Physical Asset
Abrafo-Odumase benefit more than Mesomagor in terms of number and uses of assets.
Assets such as library, market, playground, craft production centre and hotel
development can be identified exclusively in Abrafo-Odumase. Notably, other
economic activities are boosted by the presence of electricity in Abrafo-Odumase.
These livelihood activities include operating barbering shop, communication centre and
drinking bars.
Transportation (i.e. improved roads) was equally important in both communities.
Accessibility, enhanced trading and travelling to urban centres were evident. Despite
these, people still have expectations for physical assets and this featured prominently in
Abrafo-Odumase.
Human Asset
Differences in training acquired by people in the communities were obvious. Tourism
training such as tour guiding and interpretation, first aid administration, hospitality,
facility maintenance, traffic management and conflict resolution featured prominently in
Abrafo-Odumase. These were prominently indicated because of frequent tourists
visitation and having the major attractions. In Mesomagor, training such as dancing and
drumming, cookery, soap-making and bookkeeping were apparent. Presenting a
different scenario, people are involved in the management of the attractions. In both
communities, the different types of training acquired are important for delivery of good
services to tourists.
People in Abrafo-Odumase are benefiting more from the training acquired based on
prominence of other benefits such as first aid administration, care about medication,
improvement in English language and polite speaking. It was not surprising when
further expectations of tourism training were expressed prominently in Abrafo-
Odumase.
Natural Asset
The study shows that crop-raiding and associated lack of compensation, loss access to
resources and limited farmlands were issues of concern in both communities.
Particularly, farm damage and lack of compensation are strongly contested creating
local resentment towards wildlife and WD staff.
Inspite of these negative aspects, ecotourism has created favourable financial impact in
Abrafo-Odumase as indicated by financial benefits from leased lands. Having
ownership rights to land, people have leased lands for hotel development in the
community. On the contrary, being a migrant community, people in Mesomagor only
have access to land based on abunu and abusa systems.

5.7.3 Comparisons between Participants and Non-participants

The study shows that majority (69%) of respondents are involved in ecotourism. The
minority (31%) are typically farmers engaged in other non-ecotourism activities. It can

65
be stated that both groups benefit from physical assets because of their common
benefiting characteristics or bear the consequences related to natural asset. However, it
was also revealed that financial and human assets are restricted to mainly people
involved in ecotourism. Most of these farmers are not involved in ecotourism because of
time and financial constraints. Moreover, most of them expressed disappointment for
gaining no financial benefits. Surprising, relatively few expressed having no future
expectation from ecotourism.

5.7.4 Comparison between Policy-makers and Local People

The study shows common expectations, most of which were realized. These are income
from employment opportunities and income-generating activities, revitalization of
culture and infrastructure developments. Also, expectation for local cooperation for
conservation was evident and demonstrated by local people in terms of their
involvement in reporting or preventing cases of poaching.
On the contrary, whiles policy-makers expected crop-raiding as inevitable consequence
of park establishment, mechanism for preventing crop-raiding was indicated by local
people. The study shows that crop-raiding is persisting and victims are not compensated
resulting in resentment towards wildlife and WD staff. One other issue worth noting is
the expectation for gaining share of revenues from ecotourism. This was emphasized by
both chiefs and the local people. However, it did not materialize because of lack of
supporting policy. According to policy-makers, policy for ensuring disbursement is
being given attention by the government. Additionally, what is common and yet to
materialize is scholarships for children from the communities.

66
6. DISCUSSION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The chapter consists of four sections. Section 6.2 discusses the changes in livelihood
activities as a result of ecotourism. Section 6.3 discusses impacts on rural livelihood
assets and other activities. Lastly, section 6.4 reflects on the theoretical framework
whiles section 6.5 also reflect on the methodology.

6.2 DYNAMICS OF LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES

The results of the study show three main issues. These are;
1. Changes in forest-based activities to either ecotourism or other activities.
2. Local people’s interest in farming did not change but they engage in ecotourism as
an additional activity.
3. Local people engage in multiple activities as a strategy for meeting various
household needs.
The study has shown that forest-based activities were equally important in the
communities as subsidiary activities supporting farm-based activities. A socio-economic
study conducted by Dodoo (1992) in some communities surrounding Kakum National
Park including Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor, showed high dependency on forest
resources by the local people before the establishment of the park. It was therefore not
surprising to find that local people were dependent on the forest resources. However, as
expected, livelihood activities based on forest were curtailed after the park was
established. Entry to the park was prohibited for extractive purposes and infractions
attracted severe consequences such as fines and imprisonments. With subsequent
implementation of ecotourism, interest of local people in farming did not change
basically, as people maintained farming either as primary or secondary activity
depending on the level of involvement in ecotourism. It was clearly evident that farming
was important in Mesomagor. This is because it’s a migrant community formed by
typically farmers. Moreover, its relative remoteness and closeness to the forest explains
dependency on farming as livelihood diversification is limited. It makes sense in
realizing that people have supplemented farming livelihoods with ecotourism activities.
On the otherhand, ecotourism is more important for those involved in Abrafo-Odumase.
Indicated as important, these activities provide the capital base for supporting farming
activities. In whatever case, ecotourism activities supplement and complement farming
activities. This support the observation made by Ashley (2000:17) in Namibia, where
local people perceive tourism as a new rural activity presenting an opportunity for
additional activity with existing livelihood activities.
Local people’s involvement in more than one livelihood activities as reflected in
primary and secondary activities undertaken before and after the implementation of
ecotourism was seen as essential for survival. Households have diverse needs and this

67
explains why engaging in multiple activities is an important choice and strategy crucial
in meeting these household needs. This finding of multiple livelihood activities is
congruent to the argument raised by Ellis (2000:15) that rural households construct
diverse activities in order to survive and improve their standard of living. Such
constructs are also typical of those not involved in ecotourism in both communities.

6.3 IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOOD ASSETS AND ACTIVITIES

6.3.1 Financial Asset

The study shows that local people had expectations regarding financial assets. These
expectations were reflected in the diverse ecotourism livelihood activities identified.
These include tour guiding, selling, provision of accommodation and food services and
cultural entertainment. Involvements of the local people in these ecotourism livelihoods
help meet households’ needs for income. These findings support the claims that
ecotourism create variety of employment opportunities (Boo, 1992) and can bring
money to local people (Goodwin, 1996:289; Chalker, 1994). This observation was made
in Nepal where local people of Sagarmatha National Parks receive income from
guiding, selling local goods, and providing accommodations to tourists (Wells, 1993 in
Ross and Wall, 1999).
The financial gain inevitably improved the livelihood situation of some local people.
This was apparent in Abrafo-Odumase where people could support households’ needs
for education, medical care and shelter. However, this financial improvement was not
uniform among the people. Apparently, delay in payment of income and relatively low
share of income earned from cultural performance created dissatisfaction among the
people of Mesomagor. Ashley (2000:17) made an important assertion that development
impacts of tourism will not be uniform but will vary within and between communities.
For other people not involved in ecotourism in both communities, time and financial
constraints prevent them from engaging in ecotourism related livelihoods to meet
household needs for income. Other reason accounting for this situation is lack of interest
as a result of perception held about the prevailing situation. People perceive that as long
as tourists are inaccessible, then it is not worth engaging in ecotourism activities. This
situation is consistent with the observation made in Zimbabwe by Goodwin and Roe
(2001:386), where the primary difficulty for local participation in tourism was
inaccessibility of tourists in the park. Additionally, Weaver (2001:118) contends that
start-up expenses account for difficulty for local people to engage in ecotourism
activities.
Nevertheless, people still have expectations for financial gain indicating the relevance
of this asset. The need for income reflected in future expectations of the people as they
expressed optimism for increase employment from hotel developments occurring
particularly in Abrafo-Odumase. Three probable reasons account for these expectations.
These are knowledge regarding present financial impacts of ecotourism, impediments to
increase impacts and unfulfilled promises of CEDECOM. Prominently indicated in
Abrafo-Odumase, people are quite aware of financial benefits from ecotourism and still

68
recollect supposed promises of employment by CEDECOM. People perceive that
inaccessibility to tourists in the park could be improved to ensure financial benefits.

6.3.2 Social Asset

The cultural aspect of the people of Mesomagor was revitalized as expected. Directly
linked to ecotourism, it became an important asset generating income for the people.
This situation confirms and supports the argument by Lash (1997:5) who contends that
native cultures are often another attraction which ecotourism seeks to preserve. Colvin
(1994) cited the case of Capirona in Ecuador where the interest of tourists in the culture
of the people helped to revive it (cited in Brandon, 1996:17). In addition to this aspect
of culture, people of Mesomagor were able to revive local taboo, institute bye-law and
fine preventing members from keeping dogs and also preventing stray livestock. This
local initiative led to improved sanitation and helped in promoting ecotourism. On the
contrary, the study reveals different situation in Abrafo-Odumase where people showed
lack of interest in packaging their culture as ecotourism attraction. They were more
concern with gaining income from employment and other income-generating activities.
It was therefore not surprising when it became apparent that most were employed or
engaging in other ecotourism related activities.
One important aspect of any society is relationships between people, because it provides
informal safety net for people. As shown in the study, relationships among people in
Mesomagor improved. Indications such as chatting, laughing and gaining respect
accounted for this situation. The relationship was based on reciprocity as it became
apparent that gaining good relationship with orchestra group means being provided with
entertainment services under weddings and funerals. The nature of the community is
also a contributing factor in the sense that being comparatively small, closed and remote
makes the entertaining role of the group very important in relationships building. On the
contrary, evidences such as envy, hatred and insults explain sore relationships in
Abrafo-Odumase. This has the potential to enhance deeper conflict within the
community which could affect ecotourism negatively by affecting inflow of tourists.
Social network is of economic importance in Abrafo-Odumase than Mesomagor.
Evidently, people in the community benefited more from making contacts with tourists.
Cases of child sponsors, gifts and credits were indicated by people in the park in
particular. Major facilities and attractions in that corridor account for relatively high
tourist visitation and frequent contacts with tourists. It was therefore not surprising to
note that future expectation in terms of increase social network featured prominently in
Abrafo-Odumase as they are aware of the economic implications of such contact. Also,
observation made in the study indicates that involvement in ecotourism conflict with
communal activity in both communities. This was obvious and severe in Abrafo-
Odumase as people are preoccupied with activities making participation in communal
labour difficult. However, levy arrangement made compensate for inability to
participate.

69
6.3.3 Physical Asset

Local people had major expectations with regards to physical assets and these were
realized. The assets revealed include improved school structures, market, road, library,
bus-stop, health-post, playground, library, hotels, borehole, and toilet. However, the
study has shown that most assets were indirectly gained. Others such as craft production
centre, electricity and quarters WD staff in the communities were funded as part of
ecotourism project. These findings are consistent with the argument that ecotourism
bring infrastructure development (Boo, 1990; Ziffer 1989). Some of the assets proved to
be of major significance for ecotourism and local people. For example, the rehabilitated
road improved access to the communities and park. Moreover, it enhanced trading and
travelling of local people to urban centres. Ross and Wall (1999b:678) observed that
construction of roads made Bogani and Tangkoko national parks in Indonesia, situated
in remote to be accessible. And the roads provided locals with more frequent access to
urban services.
Abrafo-Odumase benefit more than Mesomagor in terms of number and uses of assets.
Assets such as library, market, playground, craft production centre and hotel
development can be identified exclusively in Abrafo-Odumase. It was apparent that
other economic activities have been boosted by electricity in Abrafo-Odumase. People
have taken advantage and are involved in livelihoods such as barbering, operating
communication centre (telephone) and drinking bars. Notably, the presence of telephone
in Abrafo-Odumase has improved local access to the outside world. This observation
was also reported by Ogutu (2000) in Eselenkei community in Kenya, where telephone
improved community contact with the outside world. The physical asset proves to be an
important asset for the people because of the common benefit characteristics and
accessibility. However, being discontented and disappointed with the impacts realized,
the study showed that people expressed expectations for other physical assets. These
were indicated and featured prominently in Abrafo-Odumase. People claimed that most
assets realized are indirectly gained and those expressed were infrastructures which
CEDECOM was committed to undertake but failed.

6.3.4 Human Asset

Most (61%) people involved directly in ecotourism were given different types of
training. Differences were observed between the two communities. These were relevant
as each community present a peculiar case. Frequent visitation of tourists to the park
makes training such as tour guiding and interpretation, first aid administration,
hospitality, facility maintenance, traffic management and conflict resolution, relevant to
people in Abrafo-Odumase. On the contrary, training in drumming, dancing and
financial management are relevant in the case of Mesomagor where the culture of the
people forms part of ecotourism attraction and people are also involved in their
management. In both cases, training was essential for quality delivery of services to
tourists. This finding supports the argument of Weaver (2001:152) that training is
needed to be effective in ensuring customer satisfaction because of the learning and
appreciation aspects associated with ecotourism.

70
The study also shows that people were benefiting from training acquired. This is
because people applied them for other purposes. In Abrafo-Odumase, administering first
aid featured prominently in Abrafo-Odumase. However, people applied knowledge in
financial management to their farm business. These indicate ecotourism has the
potential of expanding the benefits to local people. The findings support the argument of
Ashley (2000:18) that new skills gained by people in tourism can be transferred to other
activities. Being conversant with the importance of training in ensuring tourist
satisfaction and the potential benefits, it understandable when people further indicated
expectations for training. Worth noting, tourism training was essential in reviving and
preserving the culture of Mesomagor.

6.3.5 Natural Asset

Critical issues regarding natural asset were revealed in the study. Positive issues include
communities acting as watchdogs and income from leased lands. The negative aspect
are loss of access to forest resources, crop-raiding, lack of compensation for damage
farms, conflict with neighbour communities, conflict with park staff and knowledge of
maltreatment, fines and imprisonment for poaching and infractions.
Local cooperation was expected in protecting the park. This was essential to avoid
conflict as conservation of the park denied people access to resources. The study
indicates that local people serve as watchdogs, preventing or reporting poaching
activities. In this way, they contribute to the protection of the park. This effort
demonstrated by people can be attributed to knowledge of conservation significance of
the park and ecotourism benefits. In his study on perception and socio-economic
impacts of the park on communities (including Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor)
around Kakum National Park, Dodoo (1992:31) reports that between 94.9% and 96.3%
of his sample supported the establishment of the park. Reasons for the support were
knowledge about the protective functions of the forest and recreational benefits for
future generations. In as much as people contribute to conservation of the park, there are
unpleasant consequences for such local effort which potentially disrupt relations
between communities. It was evident in the study that conflict exists between
Mesomagor and some neighbouring communities. What instigated this was the
perception of other communities that Mesomagor report poaching cases to save its
interest in ecotourism. Such social conflict can cause instability in the area and affect
tourists and inevitably affecting ecotourism negatively.
On the otherhand, local people expressed bitterness about loss of access to resources
and persistence of crop-raiding and lack of compensation for damage. In particular,
crop-raiding of farms by elephants is a critical issue because of its persistence. Between
2001 and 2002, Barnes et al. (2003) conducted a research on elephant crop-raiding
around the surroundings farms Kakum National Park (including Attandanso Resource
Reserve). They acknowledged increasing crop-raiding in 1991 shortly after the
designation of the park. The damage to farms affects food security of the people.
According to Azika (1994) farmers who were often affected lost 50% or more of their
crops (cited in Barnes et al., 2003:4). These crop losses are threat to food security of the

71
people. Ashley (2000:19) argues that local communities near National Parks suffer
much farm damage by elephants and such crop losses clearly affect attitudes of locals
towards wildlife. It was not surprising to realize that people have developed attitude of
antagonism towards WD personnel and wildlife. This situation presents potential threat
to conservation of the park and sustainability of ecotourism as local cooperation in
terms of preventing or reporting cases of poaching becomes obstructed. Making
situation worse, people abhor the way and manner in which WD staff handle people for
infractions and has contributed to confrontations between local people and staff.
Resentment and local attitude of antagonism which local people have developed emerge
from a combination of factors. These are loss of access, damage to farms, lack of
compensation and knowledge of maltreatment, fines and imprisonment for infractions.
This attitude potentially undermines and compromise conservation effort and inevitably
affects sustainability of ecotourism.

6.3.6 Impact on Non-ecotourism Activities

It was apparent that non-ecotourism activity of people involved in ecotourism was

mainly farming. People are combining farming with ecotourism activities as they strive
for better livelihoods. The study also indicates that being involved in ecotourism either
conflict or complement farming activity.
In terms of conflicts, time allocation to farming activity was poor as people spent most
time with ecotourism activity. Other conflict realized was damage through crop-raiding
by elephants in particular. These are in support of the observation made by Ashley and
LaFranchi (1997) that tourism can conflict with existing activities through creating
conflicting demands on time (i.e. time taken up by tourism is significant enough to
conflict with agriculture for those involved) and exacerbating wildlife damage (quoted
in Ashley, 2000:18). Time conflict was strikingly different in the communities. In
Abrafo-Odumase, people are preoccupied by ecotourism activities such that time for
farming is limited. In such a case, some people hire labour with some of their income.
In Mesomagor however, people involved in the cultural entertainment expressed
concern over how they have to abandon their farming activities to prepare for
performance when informed of unexpected arrival of tourists in the community.
Interestingly, it sometimes happens that tourists only opt for hiking to the tree platform
to view wildlife and showing no interest in their culture or few tourists turn up with
consequent insufficient income to share among members. This has resulted in declined
enthusiasm with dwindling membership. People perceive that spending effort in farming
is worthwhile as it offers future guarantee. Disruption of farming activities is attributed
to poor planning and lack of communication equipment which explain the irregular
visitation of tourists to the community.
On the contrary, the study also shows that involvement in ecotourism complement
farming activities as people indicated using some of the income for hiring labour as a
way of compensating for the opportunity cost in being involved in ecotourism. This
finding agrees with Ashley (2000:17) who a counter argument that one of the most
important ways in which tourism supports other activities is that it provides cash for

72
investment. This featured strongly in Abrafo-Odumase among people involved in the
park. Goodwin (1999:281) made a relevant point when he contends that ecotourism
should supplement and complement traditional activities of the area (e.g. agriculture)
without marginalizing them or attempting to replace them so that the local economy is
strengthened and become less subject to sudden internal or external changes.

6.4 REFLECTION ON THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework adopted for the study describes assumed relationships
between livelihood assets and activities as influenced by ecotourism. The framework
proved to be useful in assessing the impacts of ecotourism on the field. However, the
assumption underlying the theoretical concept that when local people perceive they
have benefited and have improved livelihoods, then they will support conservation of
the park and the consequence is that ecotourism is sustained as it depends on the forest,
proved to be uncertain. Though the study shows that people are benefiting in diverse
ways, report or take initiative to prevent poaching and they are aware of the
conservation significance of the park, many factors defeat the thinking that local people
are legitimately supporting conservation.
The study indicates that local people are cooperating and benefiting in diverse ways
from ecotourism in terms of livelihood assets. Evidently, physical and financial assets
were observed as important among all the assets. It was observed that physical assets
are important in the sense they benefit everyone. Taking the case of transport and
electricity, they play crucial role in the economic development of the communities.
Though financial asset serves as basic incentive crucial for conservation, it was actually
the bone of contention between local people and policy-makers which has led to
deterioration of trust between them. For example, people’s expectation for revenue
sharing was never realized. Moreover, income is restricted to relatively few people
involved directly in ecotourism. In addition to restricted access to other assets,
ecotourism development did not consider traditional livelihood activities of local
people. The study shows that though forest-based activities were excluded, people are
still embittered for loss of access. As indicated, loss of access to resources, persistence
of crop-raiding, lack of compensation, knowledge of maltreatment, fines and
imprisonments due to infractions and limited access to farm lands have contributed to
attitude of antagonism towards the protecting agency and wildlife. Also, Involvement in
ecotourism even conflict with community and individual non-ecotourism activities
particularly farming, although in some cases it complements farming activities of
people. All these factors indicate that local people’s contribution to conservation and
protection of the park is uncertain despite some local cooperation. The implication is
that full local cooperation is not achieved making justification for conservation of the
park not gaining legitimate local support.
Potentially, social conflicts arising from relationships between local people and between
communities can adversely affect conservation and inevitably ecotourism. These social
conflicts have the potential to stimulate deeper conflicts which will affect tourists’
visitation both to the park and communities involved in ecotourism. The consequences

73
are that financial benefits to the park and local people are denied with dire implications
for conservation. Worth noting also, ecotourism development process did not also
capture the nature of communities involved. The study indicates that positive and
negative impacts differed between the communities because they were organised
differently to enhance local benefits. Adequate financial benefit from ecotourism is
though a critical factor that determines local support for conservation and ecotourism,
consideration also need to be given to other assets.
There were also issues related to the livelihood framework used. Analytically, assets
and activities can be distinguished. However, practically they are related as the study
shows for example that the type of cash received depends on activity engaged in. These
activities also depend on ecotourism based on forest which is an asset. Moreover, some
assets can be distinguished as outcomes of undertaking an activity. For example income
is financial asset but it’s also an outcome for undertaking tour guiding. Therefore, assets
and outcomes are interrelated and their positions in the framework overlap.

6.5 REFLECTION ON METHODOLOGY

The methods used in the study were useful in assessing the impacts of ecotourism
however, despite measures taken to ensure successful completion of the study, some
limitations were observed regarding criterion for selecting study cases, categorization of
livelihood used for selecting respondents and selection of informants.
Criterion for Selected Study Cases
One of the criteria for selecting Abrafo-Odumase and Mesomagor as comparative cases
was the availability of research reports. However, relevant reports which could have
enriched this research were inaccessible in University of Cape Coast.
Categorization of livelihoods for Selecting Respondents
Respondents were selected based on livelihood activities and this categorization was
restricted to ecotourism and non-ecotourism activities. In the process, I could have
missed out information from potential respondents who belong to neither category.
Selection of Informants/Policy-makers
Selection was limited to informants from Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust (GHCT),
Conservation International (CI) and Wildlife Division (WD). Time constraints did not
allow for interviews with informants from the District Assembly (i.e. the local
government) and Central Region Development Commission (CEDECOM), the body
charged with the responsibility of establishing Kakum Conservation Area which Kakum
National Park was a component. They could have given relevant information that could
have also enriched this thesis.

74
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter consists of two main sections. Section 7.2 highlights the major conclusions
of the study relevant to the objectives and research questions. Section 7.3 makes
conclusions on the bases of which recommendations relevant to science and policy are
drawn. Recommendations are also made for further research.

7.2 CONCLUSIONS
The study aimed at gaining insight in ecotourism impacts on rural livelihoods on the
basis of which scientific and policy recommendations are made to enhance benefits to
local people and to explore the potential of ecotourism as a tool for poverty alleviation.
Conclusions are therefore drawn on rural livelihood activities and impacts of ecotourism
on rural livelihoods.
Dynamics of Livelihood Activities of Local People
Whiles forest livelihood activities of the people changed, traditional farming activities
did not change despite ecotourism implementation. People maintained farming either as
primary or secondary activity. It was clearly evident that farming is important in
Mesomagor and people supplement farming activities with ecotourism activities. On the
otherhand, ecotourism is important for people in Abrafo-Odumase where ecotourism
activities complement and supplement farming activities. However, people not involved
in ecotourism engage in other activities in addition to farming.
Local people are therefore involved in multiple activities. These are important choices
and strategies for meeting household needs and improving standard of living.
Ecotourism Impacts on Rural Livelihoods
In putting the pieces of the jigsaw together, it emerged from the study that ecotourism
impacts on livelihood assets and activities can be positive and negative as well as direct
and indirect. The following conclusions are therefore drawn regarding the impacts:
1. Ecotourism creates employment and ecotourism related livelihood activities,
impacting positively on the financial asset of local people. However, relatively few
people benefit as many do not gain financially or perceive the financial benefits as
insufficient. Also, local communities do not benefit from the revenue generated
from ecotourism which they expected.
2. Ecotourism impacts on social asset are both positive and negative. As positive,
people benefit from coming into contact with tourists, leads to revitalization of
culture and local institutions, and improves relationships between local people in
Mesomagor. However, as negative, ecotourism creates sore relationships among
people in Abrafo-Odumase, as one group perceive the other of gaining from
ecotourism or preventing access to forest resources. Also, involvement in

75
 ecotourism conflicts with other community activities and in this situation it
stimulates communities to develop arrangements that counter-balance such conflict.
3. Ecotourism stimulates development of physical asset which are important for local
economic development. But, most of the assets are indirectly acquired. Also,
distribution of assets is not uniform but varies between communities. However,
Abrafo-Odumase benefit more than Mesomagor in terms of number and uses of the
assets.
4. Ecotourism promotes training of local people who have gained employment. The
training enhances their skills for quality delivery of services. But, relatively few
people are given this opportunity. There are other benefits that accrue to local
people as they find other uses for the training acquired. People in Abrafo-Odumase
benefit with regard to this aspect. However, it favoured and revitalized the culture of
people in Mesomagor.
5. Ecotourism creates loss of access to resources previously enjoyed by local people. It
also promotes crop-raiding of farms near the park and people are not compensated
for farm damage. This has created local resentment and antagonism towards
personnel of protecting agency and wildlife.
6. Ecotourism creates opportunities for people in Abrafo-Odumase to lease land for
development resulting in financial gain.
7. Involvement in ecotourism both conflict and complement farming activities of
people. In terms of conflict, its severely disrupt livelihoods of people in Mesomagor.
It however complements farming of people in Abrafo-Odumase.
8. Local people had major expectations from ecotourism regarding financial and
physical assets. They perceive that some of these assets are not fulfilled and still
have expectations for them.
9. Expectations of policy-makers and local people differed with regards to financial
and natural asset. Whiles local people expected and still expect to benefit from
revenues generated from ecotourism, policy-makers expect a supporting national
policy before disbursement can be effected. Also, policy-makers expected crop-
raiding as a consequence of conservation whiles local people expected a mechanism
for preventing it.
10. Legitimate support for conservation is uncertain based on factors such as lost access
to resources, crop-raiding, lack of compensation, knowledge of maltreatment,
denied access to ecotourism revenues, limited financial benefits and antagonism
towards WD and wildlife. These factors question the justification for ecotourism
implementation in Kakum National Park.
Poverty Alleviation Potential of Ecotourism and Conservation
Inspite of the negative and positive impacts of ecotourism, it has the potential to be
promoted as a tool for poverty alleviation within conservation context. As indicated,
people’s ability to escape from poverty is critically dependent upon their access to

76
assets and different assets are required to achieve different livelihood outcomes.
Though, impacts are both positive and negative, by decreasing the negative impacts and
expanding the positive ones to local people benefits are enhanced and legitimate support
for conservation can be achieved. For example, it is not only a question of creating
employment and other income-generating activities but also expanding opportunities,
creating access to micro-credits and access to tourists, developing collective and direct
benefits for the wider communities, minimizing damage to farms and ensuring
compensation. Exploring these approaches will contribute to poverty alleviation and
legitimate support for conservation by local people.

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Inspite of the identified limitations, local people still have expectations from
ecotourism. There is therefore the need to minimize the negative impacts and maximize
the positive one. Because, the irony is that if interests or needs of people are ignored
there will be widespread antagonism among them and conservation objectives of the
park may be compromised. The following recommendations are made to improve the
situation to enhance support for conservation.

7.3.1 Recommendations for Policy-makers and Managers

1. Farming and Multiple Activities. Traditional activities of local people and their
involvement in multiple activities must be given recognition and reconciled with
development goals to augment benefits and avoid conflict.
2. Revenue Sharing Scheme. Expedite action on policy supporting revenue sharing or
disbursement to communities. This should come in the form of development needs
as identified by the communities. This scheme should also provide for compensation
for farm damage or relocation of farmers along park boundary. Farms should be
converted into plantation through taungya practice before final relocation.
3. Removing Barriers to Community Participation. The park management should
create an area in the park that can be used by people as marketing space for easy
access to tourists. The park can benefit financially in terms of land rent for use of
space.
4. Packaging and Planning. The cultural aspect (i.e. dancing and drumming) of
Mesomagor should be packaged with visitation to the tree platform so that tourists
pay for the two attractions even if they do not opt for cultural entertainment. This is
purported to increase income for the group. The group should be supported with
communication equipment and assisted with planning of programmes and marketing
to enhance attention for farming activities. Situation in Abrafo-Odumase must also
be given attention to promote attention to farming and multiple activities by people.
5. Access to Resources. Alternative livelihood activities such as grass-cutter, snail,
mushroom farming and beekeeping should be revisited to provide alternative
sources of edible plants and meat to local people. This should be based on sound
information from research regarding its failure to enhance adoption by people.

77
6. Minimizing Crop-raiding. Efforts to reducing damage to farms must be improved or
farmers must be relocated and compensated.
7. Ecotourism must be explored as a tool for alleviating poverty within conservation
context. Consideration must be given to DFID’s livelihood framework in designing
future interventions.

7.3.2 Recommendations for Research

Studies must be carried out to;

1. Investigate the failure of alternative livelihoods activities. The findings should
contribute to re-introduction of grass-cutter, beekeeping and mushroom farming to
meet the demand of local people for forest resources.
2. Investigate micro-financing scheme and how it can be access by local people. This
is because the study revealed that one other cause of poor economic participation of
local people in ecotourism was lack of starting capital or financial asset.
3. Investigate tourists’ interest in cultural aspects of local people to promote diverse
cultural attractions. This is to prevent over-reliance of on dancing and drumming.
4. Investigate extent of conflict between and within communities as a result of
ecotourism. This is important because of the potential to provoke or trigger worse
community conflict that could affect tourists’ visitation to park and communities
with cultural attractions.
5. Investigate how community trust for WD could be rebuilt to promote local
cooperation.

78
8. REFERENCES
Aduse-Poku, K., Nyinaku, F., Atiase, V. Y., Awuah, R., Mensah, E. O., Nyantakyi, D.,
Owusu, H. K. and Agyenim-Boateng, B. 2003. Improving Rural Livelihoods
within the Context of Sustainable Development: Case study in Goaso Forest
District. Tropenbos International-Ghana.
Arnold, M. J. E. 2001. ‘Forestry, Poverty and Aid’. Occasional Paper No. 33. CIFOR.
Ashley, C. 2000. The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods: Namibia’s Experience.
Working Paper 128. Overseas Development Institute.
Ashley, C., Elliott, J., Sikoyo, G., Hanlon, K. 1999. Handbook for Assessing the
Economic and Livelihood Impacts of Wildlife Enterprises. London: Department
for International Development.
Ashley, C. and Carney, D. 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early
Experience. London: Department for International Development.
Ashley, C., Godwin, H., Roe, D. 2001. Pro-poor Tourism Strategies: Expanding
Opportunities for the Poor. Pro-poor Tourism Briefing No. 1. Department for
International Development.
Barnes, R.F.W., Boafo, Y., Nandjui, A., Dubiure, U. F., Heman, E.M., Danquah, E. and
Manford, M. 2003. An Overview of Crop Raiding by Elephants around Kakum
Conservation Area. Elephant Biology and Management Project African
Program, Conservation Internation.
Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Volume 1. Washington, DC:
World Wildlife Fund.
Boo, E. 1991. ‘Making Ecotourism Sustainable: Recommendations for Planning,
Development and Management’. In Whelan, T. (Eds) Nature Tourism:
Managing for the Environment. Washington DC: Island Press, pp. 187-199.
Boo, E. 1992. The Ecotourism Boom: Planning for Development and Management.
WHN Technical Paper Series No. 2. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.
Borchers, H. 2004. Ecotourism as a Conservation Strategy in Komodo National Park,
Indonesia. Public brochure downloadable at:
http://devnet.massey.ac.nz/papers/Borchers,%20Henning.pdf. Information
derived on March, 15th 2004.
Brandon, K. 1996. Ecotourism and Conservation: A Review of Key Issues.
Washington,DC:World Bank (Biodiversity Series Paper No. 033).
Brandon, K. E. and Wells, M. 1992. ‘Planning for People and Parks: Design Dilemmas’.
World Development 20(4):557-570.

79
Cahn, M. 2004. ‘Sustainable Livelihood Approach: Concept and Practice’. Public
brochure downloadable at:
http://www.devnet.org.nz/conf2002/papers/Cahn_Miranda.pdf. Information
derived on November, 7th 2004.
Cater, E. 1994. Introduction. In Cater, E. and Lowman, G. In Cater, E. and Lowman, G.
(eds) Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., pp
3-17.
Cater, E. 1997. ‘Ecotourism: Dimensions of Sustainability’. In Ecotourism for Forest
Conservation and Community Development. Proceeding of an International
Seminar. RECOFTC and Food and Agriculture Organization.Pp. 14-25.
Chalker, B. 1994. ‘Ecotourism: On the Trail of Destruction or Sustainability? A
Minister’s View’. In Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (eds) Ecotourism: A Sustainable
Option? England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., pp 87-99.
Colchester, M. 2004. ‘Conservation Policy and Indigenous People’. Cultural Survival
Quarterly Issue 28.1
Conservation International. 2004. Kakum Canopy Walkway: Conservation through
Tourism. Public brochure downloadable at:
http://www.ecotour.org/destinations/kakum.htm. Information derived on April,
24th 2004.
Department for International Development. 1999. Sustainable Tourism and Poverty
Elimination Study: A Report to DFID: London
Department for International Development. 2004. The Sustainable Guidance Sheets.
Public brochure downloadable at:
http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2.pdf. Information
derived on July, 6th 2004.
Dodoo, R. 1992. The Socio-economic Impact of Kakum National on the Peripheral
Communities. BSc. Thesis. University of Science and Technology.
Donkor, B. N., and Vlosky, R. P. (2003) A Review of the Forestry Sector in Ghana.
Louisiana Forest Products Development Centre. Working Paper No. 6.
Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Epler Wood, M. 2002. Ecotourism: Principles, Practices and Policies for
Sustainability. United Nation Environmental Program.
Farrington, J. 2001. ‘Sustainable Livelihoods, Rights and the New Architecture of Aid’.
Natural Resources Perspective No. 69: Overseas Development Institute.
Fennell, D. 1999. Ecotourism: An introduction. London: Routledge.

80
Forestry Commission 2004. Public brochure downloadable at:
http://www.fcghana.com/forestry_commission/wildlife.htm. Information derived
on April, 10th 2004.
Goodwin, H. 1996. ‘In Pursuit of Ecotourism’. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 277-
291.
Goodwin, H. and Roe, D. 2001. ‘Tourism, Livelihoods and Protected Areas:
Opportunities for Fair-trade Tourism in and Around National Parks’.
International Journal of Tourism Research 3: 337-391.
Ghana Graphic. 2005. Public brochure downloadable at: http://www.graphicghana.info
Information derived on March, 9th 2005.
Holden, A. 2000. Environment and Tourism. London: Routledge.
Kahn, R. and Cannell, C. 1957. The Dynamics of Interviewing. New York and
Chichester: John Wiley.
King, D. A. and Stewart, W. P. 1996. ‘Ecotourism and Commodification: Protecting
People and Places’. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 293-305.
Kotey, N. A, Francois, J., Owusu, J.G.K., Yeboah, R., Amanor, K.S. and Antwi, L.
1998. Falling into Place. Policy that works for Forests and People. Series No. 4,
London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Krantz, L. 2001. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction: An
Introduction., London: SIDA
Langoya, C. D. and Long, C. 1997/98. Local Communties and Ecotourism
Development in Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Rural Development Forestry
Network Paper 22e. ODI.
Lash, G. 1997. What is Community-Based Ecotourism? In Bornemeier, J., Victor, M.,
Durst, P. B. (Eds.) Ecotourism for Forest Conservation and Community
Development. Proceedings of an International Seminar held in Chiang Mai,
Thailand. RECOFTC Report No. 15, pp14-25.
Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J. and Sproule K. 1996. Ecotourism Questioned: Case Studies
from Belize. Annal of Tourism Research 3:543-562.
Mader, R. 2004. Latin America’s Ecotourism: What is it?. Public brochure
downloadable at: http://www.planet.com/ecotravel/tour/latam.html. Information
derived on April, 10th 2004.
Maas, L. C. 1998. Lecture notes. Methods and Techniques of Social Scientific
Research. Wageningen University, pp. 1-30.
McNeely, J. A. 1994. ‘Protected Areas for the 21st Century: Working to Provide
Benefits to Society. Biodiversity Conservation 3:390-405.

81
Ministry of Lands and Forestry. 1994. Forest and Wildlife Policy. Republic of Ghana.
Ministry of Lands and Forestry, Accra.
Neuman, W. L. 1991. Social Research Methods. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Ogutu, Z. A. 2002. ‘The Impact of Ecotourism on Livelihood and Natural Resource
Management in Eselenkei, Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya’. Land Degradation
and Development 13:251-256.
Omland, M. 2004. Exploring Ghana’s Tree-tops: People and Planet, Sustainable
Tourism Public brochure downloadable at:
http://www.oneworld.org/patp/pap_6_4/ghana.html. Information derived on
April, 4th 2004.
Page, S. T. and Dowling, R. K. 2002. Theme in Tourism: Ecotourism. Scotland: Pearson
Education Limited.
Place, E. S. 1991. Nature Tourism and Rural Development in Toutuguero. Annals of
Tourism Research 18:186-201.
Portes, A. 1995. Lecture note. The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on
Networks, Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship. Wageningen University.
Reid, D. 1999. ‘Defining Ecotourism’. In Reid, D. G (Eds) Ecotourism Development in
Eastern and Southern Africa. Country publisher, pp 29-38.
Ross, S. and Wall, G. 1999a. ‘Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and
practice’. Tourism Management 20: 123-132.
Ross, S. and Wall, G. 1999b. ‘ Evaluating Ecotourism: The Case of North Sulawesi,
Indonesia’. Tourism Management 20: 673:682.
Salafsky, N. and Wollenberg, E. 2000. Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A
Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs
and Biodiversity. World Development Vol. 28 No. 8 pp 1421-1438.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 1997. Research Methods for Business
Students. London: Pitman Publishing.
Scheyvens, R. 1999. The Potential for Ecotourism to Facilitate the Empowerment of
Local Communities in Southern Africa: A Summary Report Using Selected Case
Studies. Massey University, New Zealand.
Scoones, I. 1998. ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: a framework for analysis’. IDS
Working Paper 72. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Symonds, P and Hurst, F. 1997. The Protected Areas Development Programme,
Western Region. Project Paper: padp/05/97.
Southwold, L.S. 1999. Lecture Notes. Interviewing: Methods and techniques of field
research. Wageningen University.

82
The International Ecotourism Society. 2004. What is Ecotourism? Public brochure
downloadable at: http://www.ecotourism.org/. Information derived on March,
5th 2004.

Troni, J., Agbey, S., Coata P. M.,Haque, N., Hession, M.,Gunaratne,L.

Rodriguez,H.,Sharma, A. 2004. Moving towards Emissions Neutral
Development. Final Report. Ghana Country Paper. Public brochure
downloadable at:
http://www.ecosecurities.com/300publications/Final_report_28_June_02_with_
appendices_pdf. Information derived on April, 25th 2004.
United Nations Environmental Program 2004. Public brochure downloadable at:
http://www.unepie.org/pc/tourism/sust-tourism/about.htm. Information derived
on April, 28th 2004
Verschuren, P. and Doorewaard, H. 1999. Designing a Research Project. Utrecht:
Publisher LEMMA.
Teye, V. B. 2004. Tourism Experience in Ghana. Public brochure downloadable at:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/IDEP/UNPAN002474.p
df. Information derived on July, 18th 2004.
Vieta, F. 1999. ‘Ecotourism Propels Development: But Social Acceptance Depends on
Economic Opportunities for Local Communities’. Africa Recover Vol.13 (1).
Public brochure downloadable at:
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfor/afrec/subjindx/131envir.htm. Information
derived on February , 18th 2005.
Wall, G. 1997. ‘Is Ecotourism Sustainable’? Environmental Management 21:483-491.
Wildlife Division 1996. Kakum National Park and Assin Attandanso Resource Reserve:
The Management Plan. Forestry Commission, Accra.
Wildlife Division 2004. Kakum Conservation Area Project. Public brochure
downloadableat:http://www.wildlife-ghana.org/WWF-
webpage/initiatives/kakum/index.html. Information derived on March, 6th 2004.
Weaver, D. 2001. Ecotourism. Melbourne: John Wiley & Sons.
Wunder, S. 1999. Promoting Forest Ecotourism Income? A Case from Ecuadorian
Amazon Region. Occasional Paper No. 21. Center for International Forestry
Research.
Yin, R. K, 1984. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
Yunis, E. (2004) Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Alleviation. A Presentation. World
Bank-ABCDE Conference-Europe.

83
Ziffer, K. 1989. Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance. Washington DC: Conservation
International.

84
9. APPENDICES
9.1 APPENDIX 1: Ecotourism Definitions
1. Borchers (2004) defines ecotourism as “a form of resource use that contributes both
to conservation and rural development by generating revenue for park management
and by providing local communities with sustainable livelihood alternatives and
economic benefits”.
2. Fennel (1999) defines ecotourism as “ a sustainable form of natural resource-based
tourism that focuses primarily on experiencing and learning about nature, and is
ethically managed to be low-impact, non-consumptive, and locally oriented (control,
benefits, and scale). It typically occurs in natural areas and should contribute to the
conservation or preservation of such areas”.
3. Goodwin (1996) defines ecotourism as “a low impact nature tourism which
contributes to the maintenance of species and habitats either directly through a
contribution to conservation and/or by providing revenue to the local community
sufficient for local people to value, and therefore protect, their wildlife heritage area
as a source of income”.
4. The International Ecotourism Society (2004) defines ecotourism as “responsible
travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves the welfare of
local people”.
5. Weaver (2001) defines ecotourism as “a form of tourism that fosters learning
experiences and appreciation of the natural environment, or some component
thereof, within its associated cultural context. It has the appearance (in concert with
best practice) of being environmentally and socio-culturally sustainable, preferably
in a way that enhances the natural and cultural resource base of the destination and
promotes the viability of the experience”.

9.2 APPENDIX 2: GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR INTRVIEWS

The following questions are structured to focus on livelihood assets and activities.
A. RESPONDENT INFORMATION
1. Age
2. Sex
3. Occupation
4. Marital status
5. Educational level

85
 6. Residential Status (indigene or migrant)
7. What are the sources of your income?
8. What is your tribe? (related to A6)

B. ASSESSMENT OF LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES

1. What livelihood activities were you undertaking before ecotourism and why?
2. What are present livelihood activities undertaken and why?
3. Which activities are related to ecotourism?
4. For how long have you been involved in these livelihood activities?
5. How did you learn about the livelihood activities and how did you get started?

C. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON LIVELIHOODS ASSETS

I. Financial Asset
1. What positive financial impact have you gained as a result of ecotourism? Why?
2. What have been the negative impacts on your finances? If any.
3. What was your financial status before and how do u assess?
4. How do you assess your financial returns/profit on your business?
5. What has been the pattern of financial returns on business (compare current
situation to the recent past time e.g. 2 years ago and the start of the business)?
(This question is related to B.3)
6. What has contributed to this pattern?
7. What will be the trend in future? (related to future expectation).
II. Social Asset
1. In what way has ecotourism had impact on your relationship with people in the
community? Why?
2. What has been the gain or lose of this impact?
3. In what way has ecotourism had impact on social norms? Why?
4. In what way has ecotourism had impact on your social networks?
5. What has been the gain or lose of this impact?
6. What will be the trend of social asset in future? (related to future expectation).

86
 III. Physical Asset
1. What type of infrastructure development have you observed in your community
in the past twelve years34?
2. Which ones can you relate directly or indirectly to ecotourism?
3. What will be the trend in physical asset in future?
IV. Human Asset
1. What training have you received because of ecotourism? why?
2. What other use have you applied this training?
3. What will be the trend in human asset in future?
V. Natural Asset
1. Do you own any land?
2. How did you acquire it?
3. In what way has ecotourism had impact on use of your land?
4. In what ways were you benefiting from the forest?
5. In what way has ecotourism had impact on your use of the forests? Why?

D. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON NON-ECOTOURISM ACTIVITIES

1. In what ways has ecotourism had impact on your other activities (if any)? Why?
2. In what way does your ecotourism activity impact on community activities? Why?

E. GENERAL IMPACTS OF ECOTOURISM

1. What impacts from ecotourism did you expect? (related to understanding of
what ecotourism is?).
2. What have been the positive impacts of ecotourism to you?
3. What have been the negative impacts of ecotourism to you?
4. What are your expectations from ecotourism as long as it exists?

34
Ecotourism has been in the park for twelve years (since 1992)

87
9.3 GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW WITH
INFORMANTS (AND CHIEFS)
A. INFORMATION ON ECOTOURISM IN KAKUM NATIONAL PARK
1. Why was ecotourism introduced in the park? (related to what ecotourism is?)
2. What policy supported the implementation of ecotourism?
3. What impacts (positive and negative) were anticipated for the communities?
Why?
4. What impacts (positive and negative) have been realized? (related to actual
impact).
5. What measures are taken to address the negative impacts?
6. Are there any differences in the communities in terms of the impact? Why?
7. How is the revenue generated distributed to the communities?
B. INFORMATION ON THE LIVELIHOODS OF THE COMMUNITIES
1. What livelihood activities were undertaken before implementation of
ecotourism?
2. What alternative livelihood activities were introduced into the communities
after?
3. What other supports were given (or intended for) to the local people? (related to
ecotourism-related activities undertaken by the local people).
4. What are the present livelihood activities of the local people?
5. What limit the people from getting involved in ecotourism related activities?
C. INFORMATION RELATED TO SUSTAINABILITY OF ECOTOURISM)
1. Apart from issues relating to their livelihoods, in what other way are they
involved in the ecotourism (e.g. decision-making etc on park management)?
2. What problems are posed by the communities with regards to ecotourism /park
management? Why?
3. What mechanisms have been put in place to address these problems? (or
intended mechanisms).
4. What is the future development plan (related to ecotourism) for the
communities?

88