Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rthp21

Tourism Planning & Development

ISSN: 2156-8316 (Print) 2156-8324 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rthp21

Community-based Tourism Around National Parksin Senegal: The Implications of Colonial Legacies inCurrent Management Policies

Aby Sène-Harper & Moustapha Séye

To cite this article: Aby Sène-Harper & Moustapha Séye (2019): Community-based TourismAround National Parks in Senegal: The Implications of Colonial Legacies in Current ManagementPolicies, Tourism Planning & Development

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2018.1563804

Published online: 08 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Community-based Tourism Around National Parks in Senegal:The Implications of Colonial Legacies in Current ManagementPoliciesAby Sène-Harpera and Moustapha Séyeb

aDepartment of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, USA; bLaboratoirede Recherche sur Les Transformations Economiques et Sociales, Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Sénégal

AbstractIn Sub-Saharan Africa, resource managers often promotecommunity-based tourism (CBT) around national parks as a win-win strategy for local sustainable development and conservingbiodiversity. In Senegal, however, the social, economic, andenvironmental impacts of CBT remain elusive. Important aspectsof the former French colonial policies are still reflected in theways national parks in Senegal are managed. Such policyframework is inconsistent with participatory managementapproaches and overall goals of tourism development. This paperexamines how this inconsistency impedes the contributions ofCBT to local communities, focusing on: 1) the absence ofcommunal land tenure policies; 2) the inequitable allocation ofhunting concession rights; and 3) the military culture in theadministration of national parks. The paper discusses how theseissues reduce the channels through which locals can benefit fromtourism, the collaborative space between community membersand park administrators, and ultimately, precludes thesustainability of CBT projects in Senegal.

KEYWORDSCommunity-based tourism;national parks; Senegal;colonial policies

Introduction

National parks in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA hereafter) are regarded as vehicles for sustain-able development because of their contribution to tourism revenues and their role in pre-serving nature and wildlife (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004; Spenceley & Goodwin, 2007).Yet their establishment has also stirred significant controversies dating back to their begin-nings in the colonial era. In many cases up until the early 1990s, local communities wereevicted from their lands and could not benefit from protected resources (Adams &McShane, 1996). In cases where communities are dispossessed without compensation,they often find themselves disempowered and further impoverished (Agrawal &Redford, 2009). Moreover, decades of experience show that exclusionary and repressivepolicies frequently spur conflicts between local people and park officials (West, Igoe, &Brockington, 2006).

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Aby Sène-Harper abyh@clemson.edu, abysene1@gmail.com

TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENThttps://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2018.1563804

In the 1980s, broad concerns over issues of poverty and vulnerability around nationalparks, coupled with the recognition that exclusionary approaches are counterproductive,led resource managers to integrate the needs of local communities into the managementof protected areas (Brandon & Wells, 1992). Community-based tourism (CBT hereafter),whereby communities can perceive socio-economic benefits from national parksthrough tourism development, became a popular strategy to address these issues(Turner, 2006). Governments throughout SSA have been collaborating with internationalnon-governmental organizations (NGO hereafter) to implement CBT projects aroundnational parks as a mechanism to channel tourism benefits to local communities andprovide them with incentives to conserve resources in these parks (Kiss, 2004; Mbaiwa& Stronza, 2010).

The CBT model is predicated on the participation and empowerment of local commu-nities in the management of park resources (Okazaki, 2008; Russell, 2000). Over the pastthree decades, many governments took steps to move away from the centralizedsystem inherited from the former colonial administrations and implement participatorymanagement policies for national parks. As a result, a wave of decentralization reformsswept across SSA throughout the 1990s. In some Southern African countries (e.g. Zim-babwe, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana), governments restored land and resourcerights to communities to provide them with incentives to manage resources andbenefit from tourism (Child, 1996; Mbaiwa, 2004; Novelli & Gebhardt, 2007).

Over the years, the significant amount of research out of Southern and EasternAfrica is an indicator that CBT has proliferated in that region (c.f.; Fabricius, Koch,Turner, & Magome, 2013; Kibicho, 2008; Manyara & Jones, 2007; Mayaka, Croy, &Cox, 2018; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Sebele, 2010; Spenceley, 2008; Williams, Thorne,Sumba, Muruthi, & Gregory-Michelman, 2018). However, other regions such as WestAfrica have received far less attention on this subject. In those countries, CBT hasbeen evolving at a slower pace and its social, economic, and environmental impactsremain elusive. The outcomes of CBT can be explained through the interactions ofdifferent structural factors including policies, organizational and institutional arrange-ments, quality of tourism products, and access to resources in each country (Ashley,2000; Kibicho, 2008; Lapeyre, 2010; Manyara & Jones, 2007; Novelli & Gebhardt,2007; Sebele, 2010; Spenceley, 2008; Turner, 2006). In Senegal specifically, policies ofnational parks related to land tenure, concession rights, and management structurehold bearing on CBT projects. These policies are still rooted in the former French colo-nial administration, which limited the capacity of local communities to benefit fromtourism and supressed their rights to participate in the decision-making process(Blundo, 2014; Ece, 2012; Ségalini, 2012). Such framework is incompatible with partici-patory management approaches and overall goals of tourism development aroundnational parks in Senegal (Diouf, 2010). To our knowledge, very few studies havedemonstrated the colonial legacies in the present-day park and protected area man-agement policies and their outcomes on CBT. Thus, this paper adds to the literatureby examining elements of the French colonial system that have persisted in theadministration of national parks in Senegal and how this persistence affects CBTinitiatives.

This exploratory case study draws from past research and reports to assess and discusshow this incompatibility impedes the contribution of CBT in the sustainable development

2 A. SÈNE-HARPER AND M. SÉYE

of communities impacted by national parks. It provides an overview of elements of thecolonial administration that have endured and erode the CBT principles of equity andempowerment. We focus on three key issues. The first issue concerns the absence of com-munal land tenure policy around national parks. The second issue focuses on the exclusiveallocations of wildlife hunting concession rights to private investors and not local commu-nities. The third issue addresses the military culture in the administration of national parksthat perpetuates an authoritarian regime and contradicts the CBT principles of empower-ment and cooperation. We place each point within its historical context to draw parallelswith the former French colonial administration. We discuss how these issues reduce thechannels through which locals can benefit from tourism, restrict the collaborative spacebetween community members and park administrators, and ultimately, preclude the sus-tainability of CBT projects. Although focused on Senegal, important lessons can be drawnfor other countries such as Benin, Guinea Bissau, Mali, and Niger, where critical elements ofa colonial model of resource governance have also endured.

To reach our objectives, we first discuss the CBTmodel and its applications andoutcomesin SSA. We then provide an illustration of CBT in Senegal using the example of DjoudjNational Park. This is followed by discussions on land tenure policy, wildlife hunting conces-sion rights, and an enduring military culture in the national parks of Senegal.

Community-based tourism in Sub-Saharan Africa

CBT in SSA is often studied in relation to national parks and natural resource management.However, the concept precedes the reforms around national parks. In the 1970s, concernsover the impacts of unregulated tourism development on local communities gave rise toimportant scholarly critiques ranging from social, economic, and environmental perspec-tives (c.f. Bryden, 1973; Cohen, 1972; Doxey, 1975; Turner & Ash, 1975). It has only been inthe last two decades that governments in SSA implemented policies and planning mech-anisms for sustainable and context-specific tourism development (Kimbu & Ngoasong,2013; Mbaiwa, 2004). Organizations then started to embrace alternative forms oftourism, drawing from the principles and practice of sustainable development (Butler,1991; Weaver & Lawton, 1999). Among these, the CBT model became a popular mechan-ism to counter the negative impacts of mass tourism while promoting sustainable devel-opment in local communities (Ashley, 2000; Russell, 2000).

Unregulated tourism development in SSA was not the only impetus for CBT projects.There was also a growing recognition among researchers and practitioners that achievingand sustaining positive conservation outcomes could not happen without first addressingdevelopment issues in communities around protected areas (Brandon & Wells, 1992;McShane & Wells, 2012). Furthermore, the notion that receiving a greater share oftourism benefits would provide communities with the incentive to protect resources innational parks further advanced the rationale for CBT (Kiss, 2004). As such, CBT in SSAhas been regarded as a win-win strategy for promoting development in communitiesand preserving resources in national parks.

According to Russell (2000):

For tourism to be accurately described as community-based, it must fulfil three criteria: itshould have the support and participation of local people; as much of its economic benefit

TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 3

as possible should go to the people living at or near the destination; and the act of tourismmust protect local people’s cultural identity and natural environment. (p.1)

To ensure that the CBT criteria are met and that local communities can participate inmanaging resources as well as receive a greater share of tourism benefits, governmentsin SSA implemented participatory policy reforms in national parks (Child, 1996; Fabriciuset al., 2013; Nelson & Agrawal, 2008), which we describe in the following section.

National parks reforms

The proliferation of CBT projects in SSA was propelled by broader institutional reformsaround parks and protected areas. These reforms swept through the African continent,decentralizing management authority from federal to community level institutions. Thisshift was essential to support participatory approaches and promote community-basednatural resource management (CBNRM) programmes around conservation areas (Child,1996; Nelson & Agrawal, 2008). CBNRM initiatives are designed to alleviate poverty,promote conservation, and empower communities to manage and derive equitablebenefits from resources (Moswete & Thapa, 2018). Tourism became an importantvehicle to reach these goals, and thus CBT projects were subsumed in the CBNRMagenda (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). Despite the variations across countries, a cornerstoneof successful CBT programmes is the right of communities to manage, control, andbenefit from tourism resources on their land (Taylor, 2009).

CBNRM programmes, including CBT, were predicated on reforms in resource manage-ment institutions. One such reform was the Communal Area Management Programme forIndigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, which started in 1989. Through theCAMPFIRE programme, Rural District Councils, on behalf of communities on communallands, are granted the authority to market their wildlife hunting quotas and tourism oppor-tunities themselves (Child, 1996; Frost & Bond, 2008). The programme allows communitiesto lease their land and tourism concessions to private tour operators. Because of CAMP-FIRE, over half of the tourism revenues from conservation areas have been channelledto local communities (Taylor, 2009). Similar reforms to support CBT in protected areasalso took place in countries such as Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa (Fabriciuset al., 2013; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Novelli & Gebhardt, 2007). In South Africa. forexample, ownership of land in and around national parks was restored to some commu-nities. Lands that were restored are now co-managed between the park administratorsand the communities and can only be used for ecotourism activities (Ramutsindela,2003). In Namibia, several communities were also the beneficiaries of newly defined com-munal land policy. This policy granted them tenure rights to include all renewable naturalresources on the land, including wildlife and tourist attractions (Roe, 2001).

Beside restoring justice and promoting development, resource managers in SouthAfrica also saw secure communal land tenure as creating a stable investment environmentfor potential investors (Ramutsindela, 2003), as uncertainty of land tenure can deter privateinvestment (Ashley & Jones, 2001). For example, Cousins and Kepe (2004) note that in anattempt to set up a community-private sector partnership for an ecotourism project in theMkambati r\Reserve in South Africa, the failure to clearly define and legally support com-munal land rights led to years of unresolved land disputes, thereby stalling private invest-ment. Contrastingly, there are cases such as the Manyeletu Game Reserve where, despite

4 A. SÈNE-HARPER AND M. SÉYE

unsecure land tenure, private investors have taken a chance to partner with communities.However, when that is the case, investors usually price for the high risks associated withsuch investments, thereby decreasing the benefits flow to communities (Mahony & VanZyl, 2002). Thus, communal land tenure policy supports the interests of landownersagainst private investors to ensure that communities can maximize tourism benefits(Scheyvens & Russell, 2012).

Social and economic outcomes

The social and economic impacts of CBT in SSA have been the subject of many researchstudies. The economic benefits through the creation of employment and micro-enterpriseand the sourcing of local goods and services have been the most discernible positive out-comes (Lapeyre, 2010; Sebele, 2010). In some cases, the revenues generated from CBT pro-jects have also been reinvested in community development programmes. For example, inrural communities in Botswana, social services like water supply systems, transportation,and scholarships have been funded with CBT revenues (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). Inother instances, communities can earn substantial income from concession fees thatthey receive by sub-leasing their land to private partners in the tourism sector (Spenceley,2008).

Research has also suggested that successful CBT projects can lead to genuine empow-erment of local people. Scheyvens (1999) argues that different forms of empowerment(e.g. economic, psychological, social, political) can be achieved if local communitieshave some measure of control over tourism ventures and if the benefits are shared equi-tably. Garnett, Sayer, and Du Toit (2007) suggest that empowerment is critical to achievingboth long-term buy-in and sustained impacts of diverse projects. Empowering commu-nities by improving their capacity to manage tourism resources can not only increasethe success of CBT but also serves as a self-development learning opportunity itself(Okazaki, 2008). For communities around protected areas, Stronza (2007) observes thatCBT nurtures the type of social empowerment necessary to achieve conservation goals.

Despite the reported success of CBT, researchers have also critiqued its shortcomings.There is empirical evidence that CBT has at best only modestly delivered on its economicpromises. For example, Akyeampong (2011) found that in communities around KakumNational Park in Ghana, tourism had fallen short of residents’ expectations. Even thoughthe general perception of tourism was overall positive, most residents felt that thesocio-economic gains were only modest. Similarly, in their study of four rural communitiesin Kenya, Manyara and Jones (2007) noted that while locals regarded CBT as a way to diver-sify their livelihoods and contribute to their community wellbeing, they contested whetherthe current projects have had significant impact on reducing poverty. Drawing from twoCBT projects in Namibia, Saarinen (2010) observed that in some cases, locals are not able toparticipate in and therefore benefit from tourism because they lack awareness about theproject and its potential impacts.

Researchers have postulated different factors underlying these shortcomings. Dodds,Ali, and Galaski (2018) found that the lack of managerial capacity of local communitieshas been cited as a major obstacle to their meaningful participation. Policy focusing onimproving a community’s skills has been strongly recommended to increase locals’ partici-pation and ensure that they benefit from CBT (Aslam & Bin Awang, 2017). Additionally, the

TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 5

equitable distribution of benefits among community members is a critical measure ofsuccess in CBT (Scheyvens, 1999). Another issue concerns the sustainability of CBT projectsdue to limited external funding (Manyara & Jones, 2007). Various international organiz-ations have played a key role in the development of CBT initiatives in developingcountries, but very few have clearly defined exit strategies in which local communitiescan assume true ownership. Thus, the question of whether these projects can sustainthemselves after funding ends informs their success or failure (Manyara & Jones, 2007).

Nonetheless, one of the most salient reported factors concerns the form and level ofcommunity participation in the tourism project. Locals’ participation in tourism pro-grammes is often confronted with structural and cultural barriers. Structural limitationsfrom the local (e.g. assets, gender, livelihood strategies) to the policy environment (e.g.tenure, regulations) and commercial context (market segments) all influence the economicparticipation by local communities in tourism (Ashley, Boyd, & Goodwin, 2000; Kimbu &Ngoasong, 2016; Ngoasong & Kimbu, 2016, 2018). Scheyvens and Russell (2012) arguethat the presence/absence of communal land tenure policy influences the participationof community members in tourism. Thus, lacking a legal legislative framework to securecommunal land tenure can hinder the equitable participation of communities and the dis-tribution of tourism benefits (Scheyvens & Russell, 2012). In this paper, we add a relativeunexplored aspect of CBT by examining the influence of a former colonial system inpresent-day national park management policies and how this influence inhibits CBT’s con-tribution to local communities’ project participation and broader sustainable development.

Methodological approach

An exploratory research method was applied to develop this paper. Streb (2010) explainsthat an exploratory case study investigates distinct phenomena characterized by the lackof detailed preliminary research. Therefore, exploratory case studies are not bound tospecific research methods. We analysed past studies, policy documents, and governmentand technical reports relevant to the concepts discussed to inform our arguments. Further-more, we used relevant personal communication and observations from the first author’speriodic visits to Djoudj National Park (2014–2015) to support our analysis.

Exploratory case studies seek to address “what” questions with the goal of developingpertinent hypotheses and further inquiry (Yin, 2017). In our case study of Senegal, we asktwo main questions: (i) What parallels exist between present-day management policies ofnational parks in Senegal and those of the previous French colonial administration? (ii)What barriers do they pose in the CBT contribution to the sustainable development ofcommunities around national parks? To illustrate our findings in context, we first detailan example of CBT in Senegal focusing on the country’s most important park economically(tourism revenues) and socially (its surrounding communities). We then follow thisexample with broader findings to these research questions.

Djoudj National Park

Established in 1971, the objective of Djoudj National Park (Djoudj hereafter) is to pre-serve 16,000 hectares of the Senegal River Delta and to protect its rich fauna and flora,especially the migratory and sedentary bird pollution (See Figure 1). Djoudj is often

6 A. SÈNE-HARPER AND M. SÉYE

described as one of the largest ornithological sites in the world (Direction des ParkNationaux [DPN], 2017). The park was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in1981 for its significant global conservation value. Like most national parks in Africa,local communities were evicted and relocated to the boundaries of the protectedarea, leading to decades of conflicts over resources (Fall, Hori, Kan, & Diop, 2003;Ndiaye, 2001).

Djoudj remains the most visited park in Senegal, averaging 8,321 annual visitors from2005 to 2016 (See Figure 2). Its average annual revenues in park entry sales from 2000 to2010 were estimated at FCFA 29,171,600 (∼USD 58,343) (DPN, 2017). However, the numberof tourist arrivals at Djoudj decreased by 76% from 2013 to 2016. This significant drop inpark visitation is part of a larger overall decline in international tourism to the country,linked to the Ebola epidemic crisis in West Africa and the increased perceived insecurityfrom terrorist activities in the Sahelian Region (DPN, 2017). Nonetheless, with tourismactivities slowly picking up again, Djoudj continues to present enormous potential interms of tourism development.

Integrated management plan

In 1994, the country’s first integrated park management plan was implemented at Djoudjin partnership between the Department of National Parks (DPN hereafter) and the Inter-national Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN hereafter) and in collaboration with

Figure 1. Map of Djoudj National Park and the surrounding communities. Source: DPN, 2017. Legend:Village périphérique: Surrounding villages, Poste de garde: Patrol station, Digue: Dam, Limite PNOD:Limits of Djoudj National Park, Zone tampon: Buffer zone.

TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 7

local communities. The plan included a new institutional arrangement at the local leveland a CBT project as a key economic activity in their development programme for the sur-rounding communities.

The institutional reform included the creation of an advisory board comprised of villagechiefs and an association of 35 “ecoguards” from the surrounding communities. The advi-sory board represents the interests of community members in the park managementdecision-making process. The ecoguards are volunteers who serve as liaisons betweenpark officials and community members and undertake events to raise awareness aboutthe importance of the park and its resources (DPN, 2010, 2017; IUCN, 1994). Thischange was critical in moving away from top-down management practices and creatinga space where all communities surrounding Djoudj could have a voice in and benefitfrom conserving resources.

Communities around Djoudj National Park

Today, there are seven communities totalling 7,094 residents around the park’s 30 kmradius (DPN, 2017). The three principal ethnic groups represented are the Wolofs,Morish, and Fulani. Except for the Fulani herders, most households are engaged in amixed livelihood practice of fishing and farming. In the western region of the SenegalRiver Delta where Djoudj is located, close to 25,000 households depend on fishing astheir primary source of income, complemented by seasonal farming activities (UEMOA,2013). Farming, especially rice cultivation, is an equally important livelihood activity inthe region and counts as the primary source of income for many households. Since1981, each community around Djoudj received communal land for rice cultivation, nowused by 86% of farmers around the park (Diedhiou, 2016). Fishing and farming livelihoodsare increasingly precarious due to regional social and environmental transformationsplacing significant pressure on Djoudj’s resources (DPN, 2017).

Starting in the 1980s, the construction of two dams has had irreversible ecologicalimpacts on the Senegal River (e.g. invasive aquatic plants, salinization of freshwater),leading to the degradation of fisheries and fishing livelihoods and causing an increasein illegal fishing activities in the park (DPN, 2017; Fall et al., 2003; Ndiaye, 2001).

Figure 2. Djoudj National Park tourist visitation numbers 2005–2016. Source: Adapted by author fromDPN, 2017.

8 A. SÈNE-HARPER AND M. SÉYE

Furthermore, rain-fed rice cultivation has become an increasingly risky endeavour, partlydue to lower precipitation rates and the substantial debt accrued from agricultural bankloans (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hamerlynck, 2011; Communauté Rurale de Diama, 2010). Asfishing and farming livelihoods are threatened by these changes, developing viable andsustainable alternative economic activities for local communities is critical. Tourism activi-ties in and around Djoudj present opportunities for local communities to gain alternativeincome directly or indirectly.

Community-based tourism at Djoudj National Park

In Senegal, the beginnings of CBT can be traced to the early 1970s when Agence Françaisede Dévelopment provided funding for community tourism initiatives in the culturally andbiodiversity-rich region of Casamance (Zeppel, 2006). Concerns over the social and econ-omic impacts of national parks, coupled with the counter productivity of exclusionaryapproaches, led resource managers to implement CBT projects around national parks. In1994, Djoudj became the first park in Senegal to realize benefits from this change.

Like other Senegalese national parks, tourism existed at Djoudj well before the 1990s,such as wildlife hunting, bird watching, and guided boat tours on the river. At that time,the government and the private sectors controlled allof these activities. A full-service pri-vately-owned hotel was built shortly after the park was created to accommodate touristsand conference organizers (DPN, 2017). Private tour operators from the region’s capital,Saint Louis, arranged all park visits and provided their own tour guides to accompanythe tourists. Locals occupied mostly menial positions such as housekeepers and huntingguides, and were sometimes paid in kind (e.g. bush meat) (Ece, 2008).

The CBT project was implemented as part of the first integrated management plan in1994. The goal was to improve local livelihoods by redirecting tourism benefits to theseven communities and bettering relations between locals and park officials (IUCN,1994). It provided a tourist lodge (18 beds) located on the river banks of the communityof Diadieme III, three touring canoes, an artisanal boutique, an eco-museum, and aMoorish tent to serve traditional refreshments to tourists. These facilities are managedby members of the community with appropriate skills (e.g. literacy, basic accounting).The village chiefs in the advisory board oversee the CBT project in collaboration withpark officials. Employment opportunities include tour guides, shopkeepers, housekeepers,and cooks. In addition to providing income from employment, the revenues from the CBTproject (mostly from the lodge), were to be deposited in a community bank and reinvestedto improve and maintain social services such as water pumps, the local school, and healthcentre (IUCN, 1994). In 2007, revenues from the lodge amounted to FCFA 6,174,000 (∼USD11,225). However, the lodge experienced a 65% drop in revenues due to the decline inpark visitation from 2013 to 2015 (DPN, 2017).

Djoudj is often touted by practitioners as a conservation and development success storyandmodel of participatory approach tobe emulated inother parks in Senegal (Ndiaye, 2001;Zeppel, 2006), but locals have a different view of this project. They believe that it has hadvery little impact on their livelihoods (Sene-Harper, Matarrita-Cascante, & Larson, inpress). The revenues generated from the CBT project over the past few years have beenminimal and communitymembers reported that nomoney from the lodge has been depos-ited in the community bank after the first two years. Thus, its goal of poverty alleviation in

TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 9

the communities has not been met (Sèye & Sene-Harper, 2014). Moreover, meetingsbetween the advisory board and park officials declined. A village chief reported in 2013that their last meeting was close to two years ago, explaining the difficulty of finding trans-portation to the meeting place, yet park officials have not put effort toward helping withthat. Other village chiefs and park officials corroborated this information. Therefore, theadvisory board has not been active in thedecision-makingprocess about parkmanagementsince 2011 (Sèye & Sene-Harper, 2014). Furthermore, park-community relations remainhighly contentious, to the point where confrontations between park officials and commu-nities in 2010 resulted in the death of two fishermen (Ségalini, 2012).

The shortcomings of the CBT project in Djoudj can be attributed to the decline in touristactivities in the last decade. However, the continued conflicts between park officials andlocals, coupled with the lack of participation of communities in the decision-makingprocess, suggest that while the discourses of participatory policies exist on paper, theyare yet to manifest at the local level. In this paper, we argue that part of the reason forthis failure rests in the legal framework and organizational structure of national parks.Some of these aspects continue from colonial policies inconsistent with the currentsocial and political context of tourism development and conservation approaches.

Colonial legacies and implications for community-based tourism

Land tenure policy

As noted earlier, in many SSA countries, CBT initiatives around protected areas have beenpredicated on the restitution of land rights to local communities (Ashley et al., 2000; Child,1996). Land restitutions had been conceived as a way to reverse colonial policies tendingto dispossess locals and promote development in marginalized communities (Ramutsin-dela, 2003). In such cases, communal land policies in protected areas are drafted toprovide tenure rights to communities for renewable natural resources, including wildlifeand tourist attractions, conditional upon sustainable use (Roe, 2001). Senegal has hadseveral land reforms after its independence (Konte, Sonne, & Fedderke, 2017), includingthe decentralization law of 1996 that transferred power to rural communities and resultedin the creation of several community nature reserves co-managed between the DPN andlocal communities (DPN, 2009). However, reforms to restore land to local communitiesaround national parks have been very slow. Indeed, land allocation around nationalparks in Senegal still mirrors colonial policy pushing for economic productivity andplacing local communities at a stark disadvantage over the state and private sector.

During the colonial period in Senegal, laws applied to protected areas gave priority tocommercial private interests by reflecting the same principles of exclusivity and “pro-ductive use” that characterized colonial land policy (Ribot, 2001). Land deemed ownerlessor vacant was appropriated by the colonial state, reallocated for the purpose of “pro-ductive use,” and subsequently privatized. Unlike British settlers in Eastern and SouthernAfrica who created “native reserves” where customary ownership rights were officiallyrecognized (Mamdani, 1996 quoted in Ece, 2008), the French colonial state did not recog-nize customary ownership rights and thus communal lands were considered vacant orownerless. State-official property rights were imposed on such lands for private invest-ment (Caverivière & Debene, 1988).

10 A. SÈNE-HARPER AND M. SÉYE

Today, communities still do not have secure land tenure in and around national parks;the principles of “productive use” and private investment continue to guide land allo-cations. In Niokolo-Koba National Park, region-specific land reforms in the 1980sallowed evicted communities to file land claims for agriculture production on the northernside of the park. However, most of these land claims have been denied based on exclu-sionary discourses of productive use (Ece, 2008; Ribot, 2001). This lack of secure landtenure impedes the contribution of CBT to local communities, mainly because communalownership of land and tourism resources strengthens communities’ bargaining power intourism planning and management on their lands (Ashley & Jones, 2001).

In Senegal, communities participating in CBT projects face fierce competition fromprivate (many times unlicensed) tour operators. In addition to tour operators, privatelyowned hotels operating around national parks also compete directly with CBT projects.Communities around Djoudj reported that this issue has caused them to lose a significantshare of tourism revenues (Sèye & Sene-Harper, 2014). For example, packages offered bytour operators out of Saint Louis include daily visits to the park but rarely propose a nightstay at the lodge. They also use their own guide services rather than recommending tourguides from the communities. Private tour operators have significantly greater access toEuropean tourist markets than local CBT managers (Ndiaye, 2012). Without the rightresources and capacity, lodge managers at Djoudj have mostly relied on an Italian NGOwith a mission to promote responsible tourism to access the European tourist market.In 2013, the lodge recorded a revenue of FCFA 2,147,000 (∼ USD 3,903). A relativelysmall amount given that the park recorded a revenue of FCFA 30,531,000 (∼ USD55,454) in entry permit sales during the same year, thereby indicating greater revenuepotential for the lodge (DPN, 2017). Yet without a communal land tenure policy, the com-munities at Djoudj are not in a legal position to choose and negotiate with tour operatorsworking on their land and neither are tour operators legally bound to negotiate with them.

Communities at Djoudj expressed desire to collaborate and enter partnerships withprivate tour operators to ensure a more equitable distribution of the tourism share, apoint also reported in the latest management plan (DPN, 2017). Community-privatesector partnerships are common in CBT projects in SSA to increase community accessto marketing resources and thus level the playing field (Manyara & Jones, 2007;Okazaki, 2008; Roe, 2001). However, the absence of a communal land policy underminesthe prospects of community-private sector partnerships where local communities canextract greater socio-economic obligations from private investors. A communal landpolicy would provide the legal framework and support for communities at Djoudj andother national parks in Senegal to enter the tourism industry as private investor partnersrather than solely workers. Private investors would find themselves having to deal directlywith communities, a situation that has proven to place the latter at a greater advantage(Mahony & Van Zyl, 2002; Roe, 2001).

The absence of a communal land tenure policy also threatens the sustainability of a CBTproject. Land in and around national parks is considered national domain (Diouf, 2010).The principle of “productive use” allows for reallocation of land under public domain toensure territorial development aligned with national and local economic goals (Konteet al., 2017). As noted earlier, communities around Niokolo-Koba were denied landtenure based on the “productive use” principle during a time when the governmentwas pushing for intensive agricultural production in the region. Today, communities

TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 11

around Djoudj are facing a similar fate. Since the early 2000s, national development plansfor economic growth and food security have pushed large-scale irrigated agriculturaldevelopment projects into the Senegal River Delta. As policies were implemented toattract private investment, the demand for privately owned farm land surged, causing agovernment facilitated land grab of idle and “underutilized” parcels (Koopman, 2012).Over the last 20 years, an encroachment of 22.6% has been recorded in the park’sbuffer zone, an area reserved for local communities’ sustainable utilization of resources(DPN, 2017).

The community tourist lodge at the park provides a scenic view of the river to visitorsbut threats of appropriation are imminent. The lodge is located on the banks of the riverand is surrounded by kilometre-long horticultural parcels strategically located for easyaccess to water for crop irrigation. Thus, the lack of communal land tenure policy for com-munities participating in CBT not only restricts their ability to negotiate tourism develop-ment in their interest, but also, amid ongoing land transformations, threatens the viabilityof the project.

Wildlife hunting policy

During the colonial period in Senegal, communities were denied customary use rights toresources and wildlife hunting within park boundaries. Private investors and entrepre-neurs, conversely, were granted concession rights in parks and nature reserves fortourism and hunting operations, which had become a profitable business. As a result, vil-lagers could benefit only when hired as hunting guides (Ece, 2008). In the early 1970s,shortly after the country’s independence, the government reintroduced a similar policyto encourage private investors to develop wildlife viewing and sport hunting through tem-porary concession rights. The objectives of the policy included the eradication of commu-nal hunting and promotion of private management of wildlife resources. Djoudj and otherareas in the Senegal River Delta were the first designated hunting reserves targeted by thispolicy. By 1993, 31 concessions in designated hunting reserves were leased to privateinvestors, covering 3.2 million ha or about 16% of the national territory. Hunting conces-sion rights are leased by the state; no attempt has been made to decentralize this aspect ofwildlife management to local communities (DPN, 2017; IUNC, 2006).

In many Southern African countries, hunting is an important source of revenue for com-munities participating in CBT programmes. In those cases, communities receive an incomestream by leasing their hunting quotas to private operators (Child, 1996; Frost & Bond,2008; Mbaiwa, 2004; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). Today, private hunting operators, typicallyowned by expatriates. continue to have exclusive concession rights for hunting activities(DPN, 2002, 2010, 2017). For instance, hunting grounds at Djoudj are managed by theAssociation de Chasse et de Tir du Sénégal, a private operator owned and managed by aLebanese entrepreneur (DPN, 2017).

Obtaining the recent revenues from sport hunting in Senegal is challenging, but a studyby IUCN provides insight into its economic significance (IUCN, 2006). According to thisstudy, sport hunting firms in the Tambacounda and Saint Louis regions, where Niokolo-Koba and Djoudj are located, registered 692 hunters during the 1999–2000 season,, imply-ing a total revenue of around FCFA 450,000,000 (∼USD 818,180). Operating costs (e.g.transportation, marketing) were estimated at just 3% of total revenues, suggesting a

12 A. SÈNE-HARPER AND M. SÉYE

value added to the economy of about FCFA 436,000,000 (∼USD 792, 727) (IUCN, 2006). In2009, the director of the Department of Water, Forests, and Hunting reported that reven-ues from the sale of hunting permits alone in the 2008–2009 season totalled FCFA186,000,000 (∼USD 338,180) (Pana, 2009). This represents an important revenue streamthat is not accessible to communities at Djoudj or other parks, and locals have asked tobe granted the rights to manage hunting areas (Sèye & Sene-Harper, 2014). Therefore,the continuity of a colonial policy in Senegal that excludes communities and continuesto give private investors sole concession rights to wildlife hunting significantly reducesthe channels through which CBT projects can help generate revenues.

Military culture

Most CBT initiatives around national parks aim to monitor and control negative impacts toprotected resources as a conservation strategy. When that is the case, it requires that thegovernment empower local decision-making andmanaging of the tourism project, as theyare the closest to the resources and can aid in protection if given the authority (Doddset al., 2018; Moswete & Thapa, 2018). Thus, CBT projects must be supported by participa-tory management policies to ensure that locals are empowered to manage resources andpark officials are working with them as collaborators. Djoudj’s first management planembraced this more participatory approach, highlighting the need for such collaboration:

The status of ‘park police must effectively give way to those of ‘park educator’ and ‘park actor’whowould play a leading role in: (i)The rehabilitation of its buffer zone and the development ofits periphery, (ii) Leading external interventions through a partnership with empowered localpeople; and (iii) Concessionary and sustainable use of natural resources. (IUCN, 1994, p. 23)

However, participatory management policies are slow to manifest tangibly, a shortcomingthat has been attributed to the military culture that perpetuates the authoritarian regimecharacterizing Senegal’s national parks administration (Blundo, 2014; Ségalini, 2012).

This military culture is the most enduring legacy of the colonial administration ofnational parks. Prior to the country’s independence, parks and nature reserves weremanaged by the Forestry Service, an agency embedded in the centralized structure ofthe colonial state (Service des Eaux et Forest) (Ségalini, 2012).The Forest Service had astrong military culture inherited from the Nancy School of Forestry in France, an institutionthat valued agents’ predispositions to submit to agency-specific rules over agents’ techni-cal competence (Blundo, 2014). In 1969, the Direction of National Parks was created andassumed authority of parks and nature reserves from the Forestry Service (DPN, 2002).Although the administration changed, the military culture remained. The DPN personneland park agents officially obtained paramilitary status in 1979, thereby entering a militaryranking system. The military culture instilled in park officials and reinforced by their legalparamilitary status continues to be strongly felt in the administration of national parks. Thisculture persists despite reforms in park management to promote participatoryapproaches. Ségalini (2012) and Blundo (2014) observe that the military culture is oftenin conflict with participatory policies. Ségalini (2012) notes:

But on the ground, this new conservation model struggles to impose itself and supplant themilitary culture that continues to find supporting the professional development and supervi-sion of park officials. (p. 101)

TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 13

This issue can be illustrated in the relations between local tour guides known as the“ecoguides” and park officials. Ecoguides play an important role in carrying out themission of the CBT by providing guiding services to tourists while working hand-in-hand with park officials (DPN, 2010; IUCN, 1994). However, ecoguides end up assimilatingwith park officials, thereby putting themselves in a position of subordination to parkwardens. Internalizing this perceived subordination, ecoguides often ask permissionfrom park officials to carry out different functions, thereby losing control over their owntask. It is also very common that ecoguides perform menial tasks for park officials (e.g.cleaning, washing clothes, running errands), which takes time away from providingguiding services (Ségalini, 2012).

In addition to eroding the sense of empowerment in local communities, this militaryculture continues to shape collaborative relations between locals and park officials. Withparticipatory policies, park officials have a responsibility to support communities in theCBT projects (DPN, 2002, 2017). Highly ranked officials, who tend to hold leadership pos-itions in national parks, often benefit from capacity building trainings alongside commu-nity leaders. For example, in 2013, park directors and community leaders were convenedby the Ministry of Tourism and Leisure to attend a 3-day seminar on issues related to CBTprojects around Senegal (Ministère du Tourisme et des Loisirs, 2013). However, the colla-borative space between park officials and locals has yet to make strides toward actualiza-tion, with the goal of eventually supplanting the militarized culture. Patrolling andapprehending locals continues to be regarded as the main function of park officials(Sene-Harper et al., in press). It has been reported that CBT project partners (e.g. NGOs)perceive that park officials continue to exert their authority on local communitiesinstead of treating them as collaborators and noting a need for organizational culturechange:

An evolution of the legislation in force is essential for the mission of education to replace themission of authority. DPN officers are already working closely with the population. This verypositive trend should focus more on the participatory approach and the strategic (and evencontractual) partnership at the decentralized level. Local authorities and groups should be pri-vileged partners. (DPN, 2002, p. 33)

Conclusions

Using case study methodology, we identified parallels between present-day managementpolices of national parks in Senegal and those of the former French colonial adminis-tration. We described what barriers they pose to the contribution of CBT in promoting sus-tainable development in communities around national parks. The three key issues that weidentified are the absence of communal land tenure policy for communities, their limitedconcession rights, and the military culture within park administration. The interactionsbetween these factors and the project are not always direct but still erode the principlesof equity and local empowerment upon which the CBT model is founded. We found thatthese issues weaken communities’ capacity to negotiate tourism planning and develop-ment, reduce the channels through which they can benefit from tourism, and co-optthe collaborative space between locals and park officials.

As the country’s second largest GDP contributor (behind fisheries), Senegal’s tourismsector has been at the heart of national social and economic development plans since

14 A. SÈNE-HARPER AND M. SÉYE

the 1970s, attracting significant private investments and leading to major financial reforms(Sene-Harper, forthcoming). However, this has mostly been cantered on beach resorts.There is keen interest in diversifying Senegal’s tourism product to focus on ecotourismand CBT (Diombera, 2012; Ministère du Tourisme et des Loisirs, 2013). During his July2016 address to the ministerial cabinet meeting, the Senegalese president, Mr. MackySall, firmly reiterated his goals to reinvigorate and diversify the tourism sector as a catalystfor sustainable development at the national and local levels. Since then, various economicpolicies have been put in place to incentivize private investment in the sector to renovateoutdated infrastructure, improve human capital, and attract more tourists. Significantlyless emphasis has been placed on the institutional and legal structure that envelopstourism initiatives at the community level, particularly those around national parks. It isnecessary to have appropriate policies and planning to ensure both the integration ofall actors at all levels in the development process and the equitable distribution oftourism costs and benefits (Adu-Ampong, 2017; Kimbu & Ngoasong, 2013). In the caseof CBT around national parks in Senegal, a more radical departure from the former colonialmodel must be envisioned, allowing the state to move beyond participatory discoursesand embrace co-management policies with the appropriate legal framework. This willlikely extend the benefits of tourism to local communities so that they are in turn trulyempowered to protect the resources in national parks.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Adams, J. S., & McShane, T. O. (1996). The myth of wild Africa: Conservation without illusion. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Adu-Ampong, E. A. (2017). Divided we stand: Institutional collaboration in tourism planning anddevelopment in the Central Region of Ghana. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(3), 295–314.

Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. (2009). Conservation and displacement: An overview. Conservation andSociety, 7(1), 1–10.

Akyeampong, O. A. (2011). Pro-poor tourism: Residents’ expectations, experiences and perceptions inthe Kakum National Park Area of Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 197–213.

Ashley, C. (2000). The impacts of tourism on rural livelihoods: Namibia’s experience. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Ashley, C., Boyd, C., & Goodwin, H. (2000). Pro-poor tourism: Putting poverty at the heart of the tourismagenda.

Ashley, C., & Jones, B. (2001). Joint ventures between communities and tourism investors: Experiencein Southern Africa. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(5), 407–423.

Aslam, M. S. M., & Bin Awang, K. W. (2017). Implications of policies and procedures in SustainableRural Tourism Development (SRTD): A case study of Sri Lanka. Sabaragamuwa UniversityJournal, 15(1), 74–93.

Blundo, G. (2014). Les Eaux et Forêts sénégalais entre participation et militarisation. Ethnographied’une réforme. Anthropologie & Développement, 37-38-39, 185–223.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., & Hamerlynck, O. (2011). Réserve de Biosphère Transfrontalière du Delta duSénégal – Proposition de Gouvernance Partagée (Working Paper). IUCN/CEESP.

Brandon, K. E., & Wells, M. (1992). Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. WorldDevelopment, 20(4), 557–570.

TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 15

Briedenhann, J., & Wickens, E. (2004). Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of ruralareas—vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management, 25(1), 71–79.

Bryden, J. M. (1973). Tourism and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Butler, R. W. (1991). Tourism, environment, and sustainable development. Environnemental

Conservation, 18(3), 201–209.Caverivière, M., & Debene, M. (1988). Le droit foncier sénégalais. Paris: Berger-Levrault.Child, B. (1996). The practice and principles of community-based wildlife management in Zimbabwe:

The CAMPFIRE programme. Biodiversity & Conservation, 5(3), 369–398.Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, 164–182.Communauté Rural de Diama. (2010). Plan locale de développent 2010–2015. Diama, Senegal: Agence

Regionale de Development de Diama.Cousins, B., & Kepe, T. (2004). Decentralisation when land and resource rights are deeply contested: A

case study of the Mkambati eco-tourism project on the Wild Coast of South Africa. The EuropeanJournal of Development Research, 16(1), 41–54.

Diedhiou. (2016). Stratégies d’utilisation des ressources naturelles autour des Aires Protégées: analyse despratiques locales et conservation de la biodiversité autour du Parc National des Oiseaux du Djoudj(PNOD) (Mémoire de Master ISFAR/UT).

Diombera, M. (2012). Le tourisme sénégalais à la recherche d’une nouvelle identité. Téoros. Revue derecherche en tourisme, 31(31–2), 21–30.

Diouf, A. (2010). NEGOS-GRN: Rapport final Etat des lieux du cadre juridique et institutionnel de lagestion des ressources naturelles et foncières au Sénégal/NEGOS-GRN The Final Report State ofthe Legal Framework and Institutional Management of Land and Natural Res.

Direction des Parc Nationaux (DPN). (2002). Analyse organisationnelle et opérationnelle de la directiondes parcs nationaux. Dakar, Senegal: Direction des Parc Nationaux.

Direction des Parc Nationaux (DPN). (2009). Gestion des Parcs, Réserves et Aires Marines Protégées duSénégal. Dakar, Senegal: Direction des Parc Nationaux.

Direction des Parc Nationaux (DPN). (2010). Plan de gestion du Parc National des Oiseaux du Djoudj2010–2014. Dakar, Senegal: Direction des Parc Nationaux.

Direction des Parc Nationaux (DPN). (2017). Plan d’aménagement et de gestion du Parc National desOiseaux du Djoudj 2017–2021. Dakar.

Dodds, R., Ali, A., & Galaski, K. (2018). Mobilizing knowledge: Determining key elements for successand pitfalls in developing community-based tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(13), 1–22.

Doxey, G. V. (1975, September). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology andresearch inferences. Travel and tourism research associations sixth annual conference proceedings(pp. 195–98).

Ece, M. (2008). Report: Access to land at the northern periphery of Niokolo-Koba National Park,Senegal. Dialectical Anthropology, 32(4), 353–382.

Ece, M. (2012). Conserving nature, transforming authority: Eviction and development at the margins ofthe state The Niokolo-Koba National Park, Senegal. New York: City University of New York.

Fabricius, C., Koch, E., Turner, S., & Magome, H. (Eds.). (2013). Rights resources and rural development:Community-based natural resource management in Southern Africa. London: Routledge.

Fall, O., Hori, N., Kan, H., & Diop, M. (2003). Toward an integrated management plan of the Djoudj Parkwater resources: Senegal River mouth. Environmental Management, 31(1), 14–28.

Frost, P. G., & Bond, I. (2008). The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services.Ecological Economics, 65(4), 776–787.

Garnett, S., Sayer, J., & Du Toit, J. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance con-servation and development: A conceptual framework. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 2.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (1994). Plan de gestion quinquennale du ParcNational des Oiseaux du Djoudj. Dakar: Author.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2006). The economic value of wildresources in Senegal, A preliminary evaluation of non-timber forest products, game and freshwaterfisheries. Cambridge: Author.

Kibicho, W. (2008). Community-based tourism: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 16(2), 211–231.

16 A. SÈNE-HARPER AND M. SÉYE

Kimbu, A. N., & Ngoasong, M. Z. (2013). Centralized decentralization of tourism development: Anetwork perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 235–259.

Kimbu, A. N., & Ngoasong, M. Z. (2016). Women as vectors of social entrepreneurship. Annals ofTourism Research, 60, 63–79.

Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trendsin Ecology & Evolution, 19(5), 232–237.

Konte, M., Sonne, E. W., & Fedderke, J. W. (2017). Measuring institutions during and after colonisationin Senegal (1819–2010) (No. 696).

Koopman, J. (2012). Land grabs, government, peasant and civil society activism in the Senegal RiverValley. Review of African Political Economy, 39(134), 655–664.

Lapeyre, R. (2010). Community-based tourism as a sustainable solution to maximise impacts locally?The tsiseb conservancy case, Namibia. Development Southern Africa, 27(5), 757–772.

Mahony, K., & Van Zyl, J. (2002). The impacts of tourism investment on rural communities: Three casestudies in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 19(1), 83–103.

Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: Anexploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,15(6), 628–644.

Mayaka, M., Croy, W. G., & Cox, J. W. (2018). Participation as motif in community-based tourism: Apractice perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(3), 416–432.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2004). The success and sustainability of community-based natural resource manage-ment in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. South African Geographical Journal, 86(1), 44–53.

Mbaiwa, J. E., & Stronza, A. L. (2010). The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods in theOkavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 635–656.

McShane, T. O., & Wells, M. P. (Eds.). (2012). Getting biodiversity projects to work: Towards more effectiveconservation and development. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ministère du Tourisme et des Loisires. (2013). Chartre du Tourisme Responsable et Communautaire.Dakar: Author.

Moswete, N., & Thapa, B. (2018). Local communities, CBOs/trusts, and people–park relationships:A case study of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Botswana. The George Wright Forum, 35(1),96–108.

Ndiaye, A. (2001). A practitioner’s view of conservation and development in Africa: Integrated man-agement and the Djoudj National Park in Senegal. Africa Today, 48(1), 101–109.

Ndiaye, A. (2012). Communication, tourisme et développement durable au Sénégal: enjeux et risques(Doctoral dissertation). Université Michel de Montaigne, Bordeaux III.

Nelson, F., & Agrawal, A. (2008). Patronage or participation? Community-based natural resource man-agement reform in Sub-Saharan Africa. Development and Change, 39(4), 557–585.

Ngoasong, M. Z., & Kimbu, A. N. (2016). Informal microfinance institutions and development-ledtourism entrepreneurship. Tourism Management, 52, 430–439.

Ngoasong, M. Z., & Kimbu, A. N. (2018). Why hurry? The slow process of high growth in women-owned businesses in a resource-Scarce context. Journal of Small Business Management. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12493

Novelli, M., & Gebhardt, K. (2007). Community based tourism in Namibia: ‘Reality show’ or ‘windowdressing’? Current Issues in Tourism, 10(5), 443–479.

Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. Journal of SustainableTourism, 16(5), 511–529.

Pana. (2009, November 18). Sénégal: Les recettes pour la saison de chasse 2008–2009. Kolda News.Retrieved from https://2009-2013.koldanews.com/2009/11/18/senegal-les-recettes-pour-la-saison-de-chasse-2008-2009/

Ramutsindela, M. (2003). Land reform in South Africa’s National Parks: A catalyst for the human–nature nexus. Land Use Policy, 20(1), 41–49.

TOURISM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 17

Ribot, J. C. (2001). Historique de la gestion forestière en Afrique de l’Ouest: Ou comment la” science”exclut les paysans. London: International Institute for Environment and Development,Programme zones arides.

Roe, D. (2001). Getting the Lion’s share from tourism: Private sector-community partnerships in Namibia(3 Volumes)-9057iied (Vol. 3). IIED.

Russell, P. (2000). Community-based tourism. Travel & Tourism Analyst, 5, 89–116.Saarinen, J. (2010). Local tourism awareness: Community views in Katutura and King Nehale conser-

vancy, Namibia. Development Southern Africa, 27(5), 713–724.Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management,

20(2), 245–249.Scheyvens, R., & Russell, M. (2012). Tourism, land tenure and poverty alleviation in Fiji. Tourism

Geographies, 14(1), 1–25.Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino

Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management, 31(1), 136–146.Ségalini, C. (2012). Les agents des parcs nationaux au Sénégal: soldats de la participation? Politique

Africaine, 128(4), 101–119.Sene-Harper, A. (forthcoming). Tourism in Senegal: From prominence to restoration. In E. Adu-

Ampong, M. Novelli, & M. Ribeiro (Eds.), Routledge handbook of tourism in Africa. Routledge.doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2018.11.002

Sene-Harper, A., Matarrita-Cascante, D., & Larson, L. R. (in press). Avoiding the “empty bag”:Leveraging local livelihood strategies to support conservation and development in West Africa.Environmental Development.

Sèye, D., & Sene-Harper, A. (2014). Vingt ans de gestion intégrée du Parc National des Oiseaux duDjoudj: Les perceptions et attentes des populations de la périphérie. Prepared for Départementdes Parc Nationaux du Sénégal, Dakar, Sénégal.

Spenceley, A. (2008). Local impacts of community-based tourism in Southern Africa. In A. Spenceley(Ed.), Responsible tourism: Critical issues for conservation and development (pp.159–187). London:Earthscan.

Spenceley, A., & Goodwin, H. (2007). Nature-based tourism and poverty alleviation: Impacts of privatesector and parastatal enterprises in and around Kruger National Park, South Africa. Current Issues inTourism, 10(2–3), 255–277.

Streb, C. K. (2010). Exploratory case studies. Encyclopaedia of Case Study Research, 1, 372–373.Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(3),

210–230.Taylor, R. (2009). Community based natural resource management in Zimbabwe: The experience of

CAMPFIRE. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18(10), 2563–2583.Turner, R. (2006). Communities, conservation, and tourism-based development: Can community-based

nature tourism live up to its promise? UC Berkeley: Global, Area, and International Archive. Retrievedfrom https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0fq311pw

Turner, L., & Ash, J. (1975). “The” golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasure periphery.London: Constable Limited.

Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (UEMOA). (2013). Rapport national sur l’enquêtecadre 2012: Pêche artisanale continentale, Sénégal.

Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (1999). Sustainable tourism. Queensland: GRC Griffith University.West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas.

Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 251–277.Williams, D., Thorne, J. H., Sumba, D., Muruthi, P., & Gregory-Michelman, N. (2018). Evaluating out-

comes of community-based conservation on Kenyan group ranches with remote sensing.Environmental Conservation, 45(2), 173–182.

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. London: Sage publications.Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management (Vol. 3).

Cambridge: Cabi.

18 A. SÈNE-HARPER AND M. SÉYE